Opinion ID: 849000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: People v. Crawford

Text: The majority justifies its disposition by relying on this Court's decision in People v. Crawford, 417 Mich. 607, 339 N.W.2d 630 (1983). However, it misquotes and misapplies that decision. There, the defendant moved to set aside his guilty plea. He asserted that he had not been advised of his rights to confront his accusers and not to be compelled to incriminate himself. [4] This Court held that a conviction defective under Jaworski can be challenged by a timely motion by the defendant to quash the supplemental information or to strike from the supplemental information the defective conviction. To be timely, such a motion must be made before a defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere is accepted. [ Id. at 613-614, 339 N.W.2d 630.] Crawford did not hold that collateral attacks on convictions obtained in violation of Sixth Amendment rights are foreclosed if not raised before a plea of guilty on a subsequent conviction. Crawford involved Jaworski rights. It held that challenges to convictions obtained in violation of those rights must be raised before a plea of guilty to a later offense is accepted. Contrary to the majority's interpretation, Crawford drew a careful distinction between convictions obtained in violation of a defendant's right to counsel and other defects in guilty plea proceedings. It made a narrow ruling that explicitly noted limits on the use of convictions obtained without the advice of counsel, citing Burgett and Tucker. Id. at 614, n. 14, 339 N.W.2d 630. The majority misses the distinction. The majority dismisses Crawford's reference to Jaworski rights as dicta. But on closer examination, it becomes apparent that the holding cannot accurately be read to include Sixth Amendment violations. The Court of Appeals ruling in the case affirmed Crawford's plea. It rejected his claim that the underlying guilty plea was defective because Crawford had not been advised of his rights to confront witnesses and avoid self-incrimination. Significantly, the Court of Appeals stated that only those prior guilty-plea convictions where the defendant was not represented by counsel should be excised from one's prior conviction record for purposes of the habitual offender statute. See id. at 611, 339 N.W.2d 630. Rather than affirming because no right exists to collaterally challenge the plea, Crawford expressly acknowledged the viability of a timely collateral challenge to pleas obtained in violation of Jaworski rights. It then concluded that such a motion was timely if made before the trial court accepted the plea. Id. at 613-614, 339 N.W.2d 630. This conclusion is relevant only if a collateral challenge can be made. Reading these sentences in context, it becomes clear that the first, which regards challenges to defective convictions under Jaworski, is part of the resolution of the case. This conclusion is supported by Justice Brickley's accompanying opinion in which he stated: I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but cannot concur in the assertion that a conviction, although defective under Boykin v. Alabama and People v. Jaworski , but never directly attacked, may be challenged by a timely motion during an habitual offender proceeding. I would hold that only those guilty pleas taken in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright are subject to collateral attack in later habitual offender proceedings. [ Id. at 614-615, 339 N.W.2d 630 (internal citations omitted).] Reading the sentences regarding Jaworski rights and timeliness in the context of this concurrence confirms that the language regarding challenging Jaworski violations was an integral limitation built into Crawford. Thus, I cannot agree that Crawford's holding is so broad as to apply to all collateral challenges. Instead, given the importance of the right to counsel, considerations of timeliness must yield when a conviction has been obtained in violation of that fundamental safeguard.