Court Opinion

ID: 9657571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:30:36.573692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.465900
License: Public Domain

Soueis, J.
(dissenting). The proceedings at arraignment on the information in this case are strikingly similar to those disclosed by the record in People v. Parshay (1967), 379 Mich 7. This defendant, like Parshay, was required to plead after being advised of his right to the assistance of counsel and to the appointment of counsel in his behalf if too poor to retain counsel, but he was not given an opportunity to request such assistance from retained or appointed counsel; nor does the record disclose an express waiver of counsel. Compare the record of arraignment proceedings quoted in Mr. Justice Adams’ opinion herein with the Parshay record quoted in my opinion in that case at page 15.
As in Parshay, I find that the judge failed to comply with GCR 1963, 785.3(1). That rule, as I read it, requires that something more than technical advice be given an unrepresented defendant; it requires that defendant be given an opportunity to invoke his constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of retained or appointed counsel before he is required to plead. This defendant, instead, like Parshay, for all practical purposes was required to plead without being asked on the record whether he wanted the assistance of counsel. Furthermore, again like Parshay, this record does not disclose that defendant expressly waived such assistance. He was not asked to do so and he did not volunteer *693such waiver. The cases requiring that the record disclose such express waiver are collected and discussed in my opinion in Parshay.
For the. foregoing reasons, I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ vacation of the defendant’s conviction on his plea of guilty and its remand of the case to the circuit court for trial.
T. M. KavaNagh, J., concurred with Soubis, J.