Court Opinion

ID: 9679047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:39:20.665129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.889054
License: Public Domain

Newblatt, J.
(dissenting). Without prolonged discussion, I find that I must respectfully disagree with my Brother’s opinion in this case. His opinion depends upon drawing a distinction between “consequence of his plea” and “consequence of his conviction”. The distinction is too technical for me. I conclude that GCR 1963, 785.3 was adopted to require that an accused be advised of his rights and what can happen to him if he waives those rights *462and pleads guilty. Certainly, if an accused .is contemplating entering a plea of guilty, he would want to know and should he informed of what can happen to him if such a plea is accepted — and what can happen to him is a matter within the trial judge’s discretion, the sentence not to be in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment set by statute and any minimum term mandatorily set by statute. This is not only fair to an accused, but also a fair construction of the rule.