Case Name: PEOPLE v. COOPER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-03-23
Citations: 39 Mich. App. 389
Docket Number: Docket No. 11341
Parties: PEOPLE v COOPER
Judges: Before: Bronson, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 39
Pages: 389–391

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v COOPER
1. Criminal Law — Confessions—Voluntariness Hearing — Right to Testify — In Propria Persona Defendant.
A criminal defendant proceeding in propria persona need not be advised that he has the right to testify at a hearing to test the voluntariness of his confession without waiving his privilege against self-inerimination at the trial in chief.
2. Criminal Law — Confessions—Voluntariness Hearing — Right to Testify — In Propria Persona Defendant.
An in propria persona defendant was not deprived of his constitutional rights by the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant that he could testify at the hearing to determine the voluntariness of his confession without waiving his priv ilege against self-incrimination at trial where the defendant chose to proceed in propria persona, the trial court encouraged the defendant to tell his version of the events, the defendant has not shown that the results of the hearing would be different had he formally testified, and the findings of the hearing were not clearly erroneous.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 367.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 582 et seq.
Appeal from Wayne, Thomas J. Foley, J.
Submitted Division 1 February 7, 1972, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 11341.)
Decided March 23, 1972.
Leave to appeal denied, 388 Mich 794.
Charles Cooper was convicted of larceny in a building. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Michael R. Mueller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Arthur J. Tarnow, State Appellate Defender, and Daniel 8. Seikaly, Assistant Defender (Robert Bortón, on the brief, acting under GCR 1963, 921), for defendant on appeal.
Before: Bronson, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
O'Hara, J.
After a two-day jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of larceny in a building, MCLA 750.360; MSA 28.592. On January 13, 1971, he was sentenced to serve a term of not less than three nor more than four years in prison. He appeals of right.
Defendant's in-custody confession was admitted as part of the prosecution's case. The confession was admitted after a Walker hearing during which the trial court found that the confession had been made voluntarily. The defendant alleges error in the failure of the trial court to advise him of his right to testify at the Walker hearing without waiving his privilege against self-incrimination in the trial in chief. We have held previously that the trial court is not obliged to so instruct the defendant. People v James Johnson, 26 Mich App 314 (1970). Defendant distinguishes the present case by pointing out that in Johnson the defendant was represented by counsel, whereas in the present case the defendant proceeded in propria persona. We, however, point out that defendant voluntarily chose to proceed in propria persona by refusing the services of a court-appointed attorney. The record shows that the trial court scrupulously protected defendant's rights and encouraged him to give his version of what had occurred after his arrest. Defendant has not shown on appeal, nor by a motion for a new trial, that the result of the Walker hearing would have been different had defendant formally testified. The Walker hearing was not constitutionally infirm. The findings of the trial court at the Walker hearing were not clearly erroneous.
Defendant's final issue on appeal concerns the instructions of the trial court as to lesser included offenses. It is manifest that defendant's claim on this latter issue is without merit. People v Stevens, 9 Mich App 531 (1968); People v Goldfarb, 37 Mich App 57 (1971).
Affirmed.
All concurred.