Court Opinion

ID: 9534319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:37.302465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:17.668783
License: Public Domain

*504D. F. Walsh, J.
(dissenting). I find no grounds for reversal in this case. Defendant was charged with violation of the conditions of his probation in a written petition for a revocation hearing. There is no question in my mind that defendant acknowledged receipt of a copy of this petition when he signed the proof of service, albeit his signature appears on the wrong line of the form.
Defendant appeared at the hearing where he was represented by counsel. The court advised the defendant that he could contest the charges when he asked if defendant wished to challenge any of the assertions made by the probation officer. Through counsel defendant indicated that he did not wish to do so, and that he would plead guilty to the charges.
Certainly all of the statutory requirements for a probation revocation hearing were satisfied. MCLA 771.4; MSA 28.1134. Moreover, there was no denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.
The Michigan cases relating to due process in probation revocation hearings are largely based on Gagnon v Scarpelli, 411 US 778; 93 S Ct 1756; 36 L Ed 2d 656 (1973), and Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471; 92 S Ct 2593; 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972). Not all of the requirements of Gagnon and Morrissey apply to cases in which the defendant pleads guilty to the alleged violations. For instance, a defendant who pleads guilty to the charges need not be given a number of days to prepare for the hearing, nor need the court file a written statement indicating the evidence relied upon in making its determination that the terms of probation were violated. The reasons for revoking probation should appear in the record. In this case they did appear in the order revoking probation.
*505Defendant’s admission of guilt and waiver of his right to contest the charges must be voluntary. People v Michael Brown, 72 Mich App 7; 248 NW2d 695 (1976). We reversed in Brown because the defendant was never advised of his right to a hearing. Here, however, the court clearly indicated to the defendant that he had a right to contest the charges. In my judgment the failure of the court to give specific advice on defendant’s right to produce witnesses in his own behalf did not, under the circumstances of this case, render the admission of guilt or the waiver involuntary.
I would affirm.