Case Name: PEOPLE v. COLLINS
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-03-04
Citations: 380 Mich. 131
Docket Number: Calendar No. 47, Docket No. 51,626
Parties: PEOPLE v. COLLINS.
Judges: Dethmees, C. J., and Kelly, Black, and O’Haba, JJ., concurred with BeeNNAN, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 380
Pages: 131–151

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. COLLINS.
Opinion op the Court.
1. Criminal Law — waiver—Guilty Plea — Appeal and Error.
Error in the formal charge lodged against a defendant in a criminal prosecution is procedural only and it is waived by the entry of a guilty plea to the eharge.
2. Same — Procedural Error — Miscarriage op Justice.
Any procedural error in a criminal ease which does not result in a miscarriage of justice is not ground for a new trial or reversal of conviction (CL 1948, § 769.26; GCR 1963, 529).
3. Same — Eirst-Degree Murder — Second-Degree Murder — Guilty Plea — Miscarriage op Justice.
New trial or reversal will not be accorded defendants who pleaded guilty to reduced charge of seeond-degree murder in a prosecution for first-degree murder in perpetration of a robbery, because the plea has not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, sinee such error as there may have been is procedural only and one of which only the people may complain (CL 1948, §§ 750.316, 750.317).
References for Points in Headnotes
[I] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 495.
[2, 3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 778.
[4] 27 Am Jur, Indictments and Informations § 187.
[5] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 218.
[6] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545; 27 Am Jur, Indictments and Informations § 187.
[7-9] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 495, 496.
[10] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 124.
[II] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 286.
[12, 14] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 492.
[13] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 747.
Separate Opinion.
Black, J.
4. Appeal and Error — Amended Information — Criminal Law— Homicide — Motions.
Claim of defendants that trial court committed reversible error by granting prosecutor’s motion to amend the information to charge second-degree murder rather than first-degree murder Reid, without merit, where defendants’ counsel supported unreservedly the prosecutor’s motion and then stood by their sides when each defendant pleaded guilty of second-degree murder (CL 1948, §§ 7SO.$16, 750.$17).
5. Criminal Law — Justice.
At the present time in this country there is more danger that criminals will escape justice than that they will be subjected to tyranny.
6. Appeal and Error — Saving Question for Review — Motions— Criminal Law — Homicide.
Acts of defendants, charged with first-degree murder, and their counsel, in supporting prosecutor’s motion to amend the information by setting forth the reduced charges of second-degree murder, their readiness to plead to the reduced charge upon and with the advice of counsel, their failure, when their motions to vacate plea and set aside conviction were presented in circuit, to raise the question of whether the trial court erred by consenting to a motion to amend the information ■ when the evidence did not warrant such amendment, and their omission to raise that question at any time in circuit court, left the Court of Appeals with no meritorious question open for review except on motion of the Court itself (CL 1948, §§750.$16, 750.$17).
7. Homicide — Criminal Law — Guilty Plea — Eelony Murder — Robbery.
Guilty pleas of second-degree murder by defendants provided all the evidence that was necessary for application of the rule that although the statute constitutes murder committed in the perpetration of robbery as murder in the first degree, it does not exclude all lesser degrees if the evidence warrants . (CL 1948, §§750.816, 750.S17).
8. Criminal Law — Guilty Plea — Merger.
An accused, when he voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge set forth in the people’s information and his plea is accepted by the court, admits the charge as laid, provides all evidence requisite to sentencing, and thereby waives all previously available objections to the proceedings which led up to and became merged in the legal result of his plea.
9.Same — Plea of Guilty — Conviction.
A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extrajudicial confession; it is itself a conviction.
Dissenting Opinion.
T. M. Kavanagh, Souris, and Adams, JJ.
10. Criminal Law — Accessories and Principals — Statutes.
The distinction between accessories and principals to crimes has been abolished by statute (CL 1948, § 767.39).
11. Same — Common-Law Murder — -Information.
A simple information charging the common-law essentials of murder may be laid, and the jury may convict of any degree which the proof establishes.
12. Same — Acceptance of Plea op Guilty to Second-Degree Murder — Pirst-Degree Murder.
Acceptance of plea of guilty of two defendants to charge of second-degree murder in prosecution for murder committed during armed robbery of store in which a third accomplice hilled an employee of the store owner held, error, where record shows that if the two were guilty of any murder it would be murder in the first degree (CL 1948, §§750.316, 750.317).
Dissenting Opinion.
T. M. Kavanagh and Adams, JJ.
13. Criminal Law — Public Policy.
It is contrary to public policy to have anyone imprisoned who is not clearly guilty of the precise crime charged against him.
14. Same — Plea op Guilty.
A judge may not allow a defendant to plead guilty to a crime of which he cannot be guilty wider the facts and the law.
Appeal from an order of Court of Appeals, Division 2; Qninn, P. J., T. G. Kavanagb and McGregor, JJ., denying leave to take delayed appeal from Genesee, Newblatt (Stewart A.), J. Submitted December 7, 1967. (Calendar No. 47, Docket No. 51,626.) Decided March 4, 1968.
Alfred Collins and Eddie Collins pleaded guilty and were convicted of second-degree murder. Motions to vacate pleas, set aside convictions, and for new trial denied. Application for delayed appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Defendants appeal on leave granted.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoshi, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Kuebler and Paul G. Miller, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people.
Perlman & Garber, for defendants.

Opinion:
BreNNAN, J.
Both defendants in this case were represented by attorneys when they appeared in court on January 9, 1963. At that time, there was a discussion between counsel and the court about the legal question of whether these defendants could properly be charged with second-degree murder. The prosecutor moved an amended information be filed, charging these defendants with second-degree murder. Counsel for both of these defendants joined in the prosecutor's motion to so amend the information. The court permitted the information to be amended, and thereupon accepted pleas of guilty from both defendants upon the amended charge. Defendants now claim that they were not guilty of second-degree murder. They claim that they should have been charged with first-degree murder. They claim that the homicide in this case was committed in the process of the commiggÍQn qf an armed robbery, and that therefore, under CL 1948, § 750-.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548), the murder is defined as murder of the first degree.
Even if appellants' stated contention were sound, which we need not determine, the result would have to be the same. An error (if any) in the formal charge lodged against a defendant is procedural only. It is waived by the entry of a plea thereto. Furthermore, this Court will not regard as the basis for a new trial or reversal of a-conviction any procedural error which does not result in a miscarriage of justice. GCR 1963, 529; CL 1948, § 769-.26.
If there is any miscarriage of justice, under these circumstances it can only be one in which the people of the State of Michigan have exacted an insufficient penalty. Putting it another way, if there has been, under these circumstances, a miscarriage of justice, it is a miscarriage which ran to the benefit of the defendants and to the detriment of the people. Of such a miscarriage of justice, only the people can complain.
Court of Appeals order affirmed.
Dethmees, C. J., and Kelly, Black, and O'Haba, JJ., concurred with BeeNNAN, J.
"Sec. 26. No judgment or verdiet shall he set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted by any court of this State in any criminal case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice."