Court Opinion

ID: 9855785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:31:00.36697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:04.287953
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
Defendant pled guilty in the Oakland County Circuit Court to a charge of manslaughter. MCL 750.321; MSA 28.553. Imposition of sentence was delayed for approximately 11 months. Defendant was ultimately sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of from 7-1/2 to 15 years.
We find the second issue raised by defendant to be dispositive and reverse his conviction. The plea-taking court did not personally apprise defendant of most of the rights he would be waiving by his plea of guilty, as mandated by GCR 1963, 785.7. The omitted rights included all of the Jaworski1 rights. Instead, the plea was accepted after defendant acknowledged executing a plea form and that he understood what rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. While we have little doubt that defendant did indeed understand the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, the rule is clear that *196the trial court must personally inform defendant of the rights he will be waiving by his plea. Our views are in accordance with those expressed by our colleagues in People v Jones, 58 Mich App 231; 227 NW2d 297 (1975), People v Atkins, 60 Mich App 380; 230 NW2d 443 (1975), and People v Napier, 69 Mich App 46; 244 NW2d 359 (1976).2
Reversed and remanded.
M. J. Kelly, P.J., concurred.

 People v Jaworski, 387 Mich 21; 194 NW2d 868 (1972).

 We note that Atkins relied on People v Shekoski, 393 Mich 134; 224 NW2d 656 (1974), as support for its holding. While the Shekoski holding that strict, literal compliance with GCR 1963, 785.7 is always required was overruled by Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 113; 235 NW2d 132 (1975), we agree with the Napier panel that exclusive reliance on plea forms does not constitute adequate compliance with the court rule.