Court Opinion

ID: 9732658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:30:20.262736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:28.342194
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
(dissenting). Unlike my brothers, I do not believe that defendant’s guilty plea of March 31, 1960, for attempted breaking and entering in the nighttime of a business place with intent to commit a larceny therein, MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305, complied with the court rule, statutory, and case law in existence at the time. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
In 1960, the procedure to be followed for guilty pleas was determined by MCLA 768.35; MSA *38828.1058 (set forth in the majority opinion) and Court Rule No 35A(2), 318 Mich xxxix, which is as follows:
"Imposing sentence. If the accused pleads guilty, after such plea and before sentence the court shall inform the accused of the nature of the accusation and the consequence of his plea; and regardless of whether he is represented by counsel, the court shall examine the accused, not necessarily under oath, and as a condition of accepting the plea of guilty and imposing sentence shall ascertain that the plea was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency. Unless the court determines that the plea of guilty was so made, it shall not be accepted. ” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Michigan Supreme Court in People v Barrows, 358 Mich 267; 99 NW2d 347 (1959), considered a challenge to the validity of a conviction by guilty plea, stating:
"It is plain, however, that in this case the mandatory provisions of Rule No 35A were not complied with. The direct questioning of a defendant by the trial judge on plea of guilty is required by the rule for the purpose of establishing the crime and the participation therein of the person pleading guilty. This is a precaution against involuntary or induced false pleas of guilty, and against subsequent false claims of innocence.
"We have little doubt that the entry of the plea by his attorney was made with defendant’s agreement. But Michigan’s rule on acceptance of pleas requires that the court ascertain more about the plea than that the defendant agrees that it is expedient to so plead. The rule is designed to require reasonable ascertainment of the truth of the plea.
"This requirement was present in the statute (CL 1948, §768.35 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.1058]) which preceded Rule No 35A. It has frequently been given *389effect by this Court. People v Utter, 209 Mich 214; People v Merhige, 212 Mich 601. What has been added by the rule is the mandatory requirement that the court 'examine the accused. ’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) People v Barrows, supra at 272-273.
The following is the entire record of the guilty plea proceeding in the case at bar:
"The Court: The People vs William James Birmingham, charged with breaking and entering a business place in the night time with intent to commit larceny.
"Mr. Miller [defense counsel]: If your Honor please, the defendant now desires to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of breaking and entering a business place in the night time and plead guilty to attempted breaking and entering in the night time. The defendant has been advised of his constitutional rights of trial by jury.
"The Court: Is that all right with the prosecutor, attempt to break and enter?
"Mr. Flanigan [assistant prosecutor]: Yes.
"The Court: William James Birmingham, you want to plead guilty of attempt to break and enter a business place in the night time with intent to commit larceny?
"The Defendant: Yes.
"The Court: Your plea of guilty is free and voluntary?
"The Defendant: Yes.
"The Court: No one has promised you anything?
"The Defendant: No.
"The Court: No one has induced you to plead guilty?
"The Defendant: No.
"The Court: You are pleading guilty because you are guilty?
"The Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: Your plea of guilty is of your own free will?
"The Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: I will accept the plea of guilty of attempted breaking and entering of a business place in *390the night time with intent to commit larceny. Refer you to the Probation Department. Sentence, on the 13th.”
Clearly this does not comply with Court Rule 35A and People v Barrows, supra. There is no affirmative indication, on the record, that defendant’s plea was made understandingly and there is a total absence of a factual foundation enabling the court to ascertain the truth of the plea.
Based on the aforementioned case, statute, and court rule, I vote to reverse.