Court Opinion

ID: 9855786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:31:00.369633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:04.288463
License: Public Domain

R. M. Daniels, J.
(concurring in result only). I agree that under the present facts defendant’s plea-based conviction must be set aside. I do not agree with the majority opinion insofar as it holds that a detailed guilty plea form such as that executed by defendant in the case at bar can never be utilized to remedy the failure of a plea-taking judge to inform a defendant orally of one or another of the rights enumerated under GCR 1963, 785.7(1)(g) or 785.7(2).
In the case at bar, the lower court did not ascertain from defendant all of the elements of voluntary manslaughter and thus failed to establish an adequate factual basis for the crime to which defendant pled. GCR 1963, 785.7(3)(a). In addition, the judge neglected to apprise defendant personally of many of the rights set forth in subrule 785.7. The cumulative magnitude of these errors compels reversal.
However, if the sole error in this case had been *197the trial court’s inadvertent failure orally to inform defendant of an enumerated right, I would have voted to affirm defendant’s conviction under the rationale of People v Smith, 98 Mich App 58; 296 NW2d 183 (1980), which I endorse. See also Chief Judge Danhof’s dissenting opinion in People v Lockett, 111 Mich App 405, 409; 314 NW2d 640 (1981). I disagree with the present majority opinion to the extent it holds contrariwise.