Court Opinion

ID: 9714171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:32:25.241912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:24.040161
License: Public Domain

O’Hara J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Kavanagh. The defendant at the time of arraignment was denied the fundamental protection afforded him by article 2, § 19, of the Michigan Constitution of 1908. To be advised of the right to be represented by counsel is implicit in the right itself. For this reason I, too, would order defendant’s release and remand.
However, I am not prepared to say at this point that Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (83 S Ct 792, *6679 L ed 2d 799), nor Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 US 2 (84 S Ct 80, 11 L ed 2d 41), have the retroactive application contended for them by my confrere. I regard the interpretation given by the Pennsylvania supreme court to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (81 S Ct 1684, 6 L ed 2d 1081, 84 ALK2d 933), as being equally applicable to Gideon and Pickelsimer:
“In our opinion, Mapp was never intended to apply in retrospection so as to command the reversal of judgments of sentence and convictions which now offend the Mapp rule hut which became final prior to Mapp.” Commonwealth, ex rel. Wilson, v. Rundle, 412 Pa 109, 122 (194 A2d 143, 149).
When the supreme court of the United States unequivocally states that their recent decisions in this field of constitutional law should he applied retroactively, I will just as unequivocally accept their ruling.