Court Opinion

ID: 9657589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:31:01.76081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.617957
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.,
(dissenting). For the reasons discussed in my opinion in People v. Hobdy (1968), 380 Mich 686, 692, I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ vacation of the defendant’s conviction on his plea óf guilty and its remand of the case to the circuit court for trial. See, also, People v. Parshay (1967), 379 Mich 7.
Furthermore, the requirement of then applicable Court Rule No 35A (1945) [318 Mich xxxix, xl], currently see BOB 1963, 785.3(2), that defendant be advised of the consequences of a guilty plea means, at the very least, that he be advised of the maximum *703sentence to which, he exposes himself upon pleading guilty. It seems to me too elementary for dispute that an intelligent plea of guilty cannot be made without knowledge of the possible sentence of imprisonment that thereby can be imposed. I suppose no one would quarrel with the notion that, if we had capital punishment in this State, a defendant seeking to plead guilty should be apprised that he risks a death penalty instead of imprisonment. The reason, of course, is that knowing one of the “consequences” of his guilty plea might be death, a defendant might wish, instead, to demand his constitutional right to trial before judge or jury. I see no difference between a defendant being allowed to plead without knowledge that he risks death rather than imprisonment and a defendant allowed to plead without knowledge that he risks a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life rather than for a term of 10 years or that, as in this case, he risks imprisonment for a maximum of 4-1/2 years instead of 2.
T. M. KavaNagh, J., concurred with Souris, J.