Court Opinion

ID: 9672334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:52:56.017054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.439511
License: Public Domain

*690D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
(dissenting). Defendant offered a plea of guilty on April 23, 1974, to a reduced charge of second-degree murder, and it was accepted. On April 29 the defendant wrote the trial court stating that he was innocent; that he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea; and that he had offered the plea against his better judgment on the advice of counsel. He also wrote his attorney a similar letter. On May 3 a formal motion to withdraw the plea was filed. The motion was summarily denied by the trial court at sentencing on May 21.
GCR 1963, 785.7(4), effective June 1, 1973, governs the withdrawal of guilty pleas. It provides:
"The court may take the proffered plea under advisement. However, until the court accepts the plea on the record, the defendant may withdraw it as a matter of right without assigning cause. After the court accepts the plea the court may on motion of the defendant set aside his plea of guilty or nolo contendere; or the court may, sua sponte with the consent of the defendant, set aside his plea.” (Emphasis supplied.)
While the rule gives the defendant an absolute right to withdraw his plea before it is accepted, the rule continues the previous case law in the period between the acceptance of the plea by the trial court and the imposition of sentence. People v Matthews, 393 Mich 771 (1974), People v Lewandowski (On Rehearing) 60 Mich App 455; 231 NW2d 392 (1975). The standard to be applied during the latter period is, "discretion * * * with great liberality”. People v Bencheck, 360 Mich 430, 432; 104 NW2d 191, 192 (1960); People v Lewandowski, supra.
In both his letter and his motion the defendant stated that he was innocent and wished to prove his innocence in court. Unless the claim of .inno*691cence is totally frivolous, the trial court should grant the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. People v Bencheck, supra. Since under our laws innocence is presumed, it is a rare case that even a belated claim of innocence should not merit a full trial on the original charge, even if the trial court believes that the defendant is guilty. People v Bencheck, supra, People v Stone, 293 Mich 658; 292 NW 520 (1940), People v Piechowiak, 278 Mich 550; 270 NW 783 (1936).
The motion did not come as a surprise to the trial court on the day of sentencing and defense counsel indicated that the defendant would be ready for trial on June 4, the scheduled trial date. Thus the motion to withdraw the plea was not just dilatory. People v Zaleski, 375 Mich 71; 133 NW2d 175 (1965), People v Whitmer, 16 Mich App 703; 168 NW2d 908 (1969), lv den 383 Mich 763 (1970). In my opinion I find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
I would reverse and remand for trial on the merits.