Court Opinion

ID: 9704366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:33:09.681715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:01.308229
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(dissenting). In this case, at her probation revocation hearing, defendant waived her right to counsel.
However, at her subsequent sentencing to a term of not less than 16 months nor more than 48 months in prison, she neither was advised of her right to counsel nor did she waive her right to counsel nor was she represented by counsel at said sentencing.
Under GCR 1963, 785.4(1) which is mandatory, defendant was entitled to be represented by counsel at sentencing unless she affirmatively waived her right to counsel. The specific relevant language is as follows:
"Even though a defendant has during the course of proceedings waived assistance of a lawyer he shall not be called upon to participate in any subsequent proceedings * * * until upon being advised on each such occasion of his right to a lawyer at public expense he expressly reaffirms his desire to waive assistance of a lawyer or, if he is eligible for and then requests the appointment of a lawyer, until a lawyer has been appointed or if he then so requests and has the financial ability to do so, he has had a reasonable opportunity to retain a lawyer.”
As a matter of fact, on the earlier occasion when she waived her right to counsel, defendant was given no hint that she would be entitled to counsel *217at the time of sentence. This was not a sufficient waiver. Of further relevance here is GCR 1963, 785.8 which provides in part as follows:
"Sentencing. Before sentence is imposed the court shall: (1) Require the presence of defendant’s lawyer unless affirmatively waived by defendant * * * .”
Therefore, in accord with People v DeLaRosa (No. 20625, unpublished per curiam decided May 19, 1976), I would set aside the sentence and remand to the trial court.