Court Opinion

ID: 9657588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:31:01.757122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.617339
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.,
(concurring). I agree, for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in People v. Hobdy (1968), 380 Mich 686, 690, that upon the facts in this case the right to counsel was waived.
; I do not agree that what Judge Simpson did here will invariably constitute a proper or adequate explanation of the right to counsel and an offer of same. (See my opinions in People v. Stearns (1968), 380 Mich 704, 706, and People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719, 735.) No pat rule or formula can satisfy the constitutional requirement of intelligent and understanding waiver which depends upon the capacities of a defendant in a given case as well as the explanation by the trial judge.
I agree with Justice O’Haea’s opinion as to the issue of “consequence of his plea” and that the purpose of the examination “is to find out if the accused is pleading guilty because he in fact is guilty.” (Emphasis added.)
I vote to reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the conviction.