Court Opinion

ID: 9655831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:23:12.950858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:22.374869
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
{dissenting). I agree with Mr. Justice Dethmers that the appeal in this case is not dismissible as moot for the reasons he assigns and on the basis of the authority he cites.
I am not in agreement with the statement:
“These United States Supreme Court decisions, all involving felonies, may not necessarily be controlling of the question in the instant case relating to a misdemeanor.”
Rather it is my position that they are not controlling for the somewhat obvious reason that in this State, by statute, felonies are not misdemeanors.
Thus, we are not mandated by any Federal case precedent to furnish indigent misdemeanants counsel at public expense.
However, in the interim between serving of Mr. Justice Dethmers’ opinion upon the other members of this Court and its release date, this Court, with Mr. Justice Black and myself dissenting, amended GOB 1963, 785 to include the furnishing of counsel to those charged with misdemeanors upon conviction for which the accused could be jailed for 90 days or more.
The vast majority of misdemeanors in this State are punishable by a jail sentence up to and including 90 days. These offenses are cognizable by justices of the peace and municipal courts. This latter becomes important because of an additional requirement in GCR 785, It provides in ,4:
*608“(1) Eight to Timely Appeal. Hereafter, immediately upon sentencing, the court shall advise the defendant in open court that he is entitled as a matter of constitutional right to appellate review of his conviction and that, if defendant is financially unable to provide counsel to perfect such appeal, the court will appoint counsel for him and will furnish counsel with such portions of the trial transcript counsel requires to prepare postconviction motions and to perfect an appeal.”
So long as GCR 1963, 785 was concerned with felonies, as it was prior to the amendment to take effect January 1, 1967,1 no practical difficulty attended the enforcement of GCR 1963, 785.4(1). However, when misdemeanors, for which the accused could be jailed for 90 days or more, was added to GCR 1963, 785.3 and the right to such “portion of the trial transcript” as appellate counsel required became applicable to prosecutions in justices’ courts and municipal courts, a practically unworkable situation was created. In countless justices’ courts and municipal courts throughout Michigan, court reporters are not available. Neither do I believe can they be made available at whatever expenditure of public funds. There simply aren’t that many. I take judicial notice of our regional judicial conferences of the past year, which were to some substantial degree devoted to the problem of obtaining sufficient court reporters for the circuit courts of the State and the recorder’s court of Detroit.
I follow, therefore, my dissent from the adoption of the amendment to GCR 1963, 785, which includes in its terms misdemeanors, conviction for which the accused could be jailed for 90 days or more, with this dissent from Mr. Justice Dethmers’ opinion *609that in all snch foregoing prosecutions the accused is entitled to appellate counsel at public expense.
If the purist view is to be followed, then in every prosecution for an offense upon conviction for which the accused can be jailed at all, he has a right to counsel at public expense. I see nothing more sacred about 90 days than 10 days, or 1 day. If, however, it be said that this is a “practical matter” and that undiluted theory cannot obtain because the Bar simply can’t furnish that many lawyers (to say nothing of reporters and the yet unmentioned amount of public expenditure), then I say a misdemeanor, upon conviction for which the accused can be jailed for 90 days or more, is a most unfortunate place to draw the line of “practicality.”
I believe it the better part of wisdom to follow the Federal classification of offenses as provided in the Federal criminal justice act to which Mr. Justice Dethmers makes reference in his opinion. This congressional enactment was preceded by study and research. It reflects, as I think it should, the legislative recognition of the necessity of representation of indigent defendants, within the limits of practicality. I therefore maintain my opposition to GCR 1963, 785.3 as proposed for adoption as of January 1, 1967.2 I would recognize the “petty offense” classification as is done in the Federal act and provide counsel for the indigent accused of any misdemeanor except those “for which the penalty does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months, or a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or both.” (Federal criminal justice act, 18 USCA § 1.)
Specifically, I agree with Mr. Justice Black in his statement:
“Until the Supreme Court speaks otherwise, I shall look upon the pertinent requirement of the *610Sixth Amendment and of our Constitution as being fully consistent with the petty offense exception made by the criminal justice act.”
Despite the fact that the issue in this case is the appointment of appellate counsel only, I think the matter of appointment of trial and appellate counsel under GrCR 1963, 785 are inextricably interwoven. In practical effect they cannot be treated separately. We would promote a high-stake judicial poker game at public expense to await the outcome of a trial for a misdemeanor where the accused is not furnished counsel and then provide him with appellate counsel and a transcript, or a portion thereof, and thus set in motion the machinery of appeal. What is even more incredible to me is to allow any of the courts of original jurisdiction over this class of offense to accept a plea of guilty without furnishing counsel, and then upon acceptance of such plea advise the pleader that he has an absolute right to appellate counsel and a transcript of the proceedings attendant the acceptance of his plea. We can’t surely say to the counties of Michigan, this Court will not order you to supply indigents accused of misdemeanors coming within the rule trial counsel, but you must furnish to them appellate counsel and a transcript or portion thereof at public expense. So to do is to put the publicly-paid counsel cart before the horse.
The scholarly opinion of Mr. Justice Souris restates the obligation of those States which grant criminal appeals of right to afford “the indigent as adequate and effective appellate review as that given appellants with funds” under the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.3
*611This is settled law. It is not settled law in my view that the same obligation is imposed where the conviction is for a petty offense as defined in the Federal criminal justice act.
I would affirm the trial judge.
Brennan, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 By subsequent action, this Court postponed the effective date of this Rule and has published a proposed revised version thereof under GCR 1963, 933 inviting further comment by beneh and bar.

 See footnote 1.

 Draper v. Washington (1963), 372 US 487 (83 S Ct 774, 9 L ed 2d 899).