Court Opinion

ID: 9697844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:34:01.634992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:35.961480
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.,
(dissenting). The defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion for a new trial states that he agreed to plead guilty only after assurances from his trial counsel, following conferences asserted to have taken place between such counsel and officers of the State police and others unknown to the defendant, that if he did plead guilty his automobile, which had been seized by the police, would be returned to him. The affidavit further asserts that the automobile was not returned although the defendant did plead guilty. No answering affidavit or other response was filed by the people.
The defendant’s affidavit is, in my opinion, in sufficient detail to entitle him to a testimonial hearing on the question whether such a promise was made and, if so, whether it was fulfilled.
If the trier of fact were to find upon such hearing •that the alleged promise was made by a State official ;and not kept, the defendant would then be entitled to have his guilty plea set aside. In re Valle (1961), 364 Mich 471, 478; Machibroda v. United States *148(1962), 368 US 487, 493 (82 S Ct 510, 513, 7 L Ed 2d 473). If the trier of fact were to find that the. promise was falsely made by defendant’s trial counsel, the defendant would in my opinion in that case also be entitled to have his plea set aside. People v. Byrd (1968), 12 Mich App 186, 226 (per Levin, J., concurring).
For the reasons stated, I would remand for such a hearing. If the trial judge finds the alleged promise was not made, then the conviction should indeed be affirmed as defendant’s plea of guilty waived whatever defenses he could have asserted at a trial.