Court Opinion

ID: 9665456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:48:55.743807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.863593
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority opinion. The evidentiary hearing was inconclusive and is of little aid to this Court for carrying out a meaningful review of the voluntariness of the defendant’s guilty plea.
The question of the voluntariness of defendant’s plea precipitated the remand for an evidentiary hearing. However, a review of the evidentiary hearing transcript reveals that the lower court was preoccupied with the truthfulness of the plea rather than its voluntariness. In addition, the defendant was the only witness at the hearing and the transcript indicates that, at critical times during his testimony, he did not Understand the ques*471tions put to him by either the defense counsel, the prosecutor, or the court.
Moreover, concern for the fate of a family member can result in coercion capable of vitiating the voluntariness of a plea. People v Thomas Smith, 37 Mich App 264, 266 (1971); People v Whitmer, 16 Mich App 703 (1969); People v Hollman, 12 Mich App 231 (1968). Whether claims of this nature are made before or after sentencing, they should be treated and investigated with the utmost care and solicitude. This was not done here.
Therefore, I vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.