People v. Bencheck

Citation360 Mich. 430,104 N.W.2d 191
Decision Date11 July 1960
Docket NumberNo. 59,59
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Fred Carl BENCHECK, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

Leon A. S. Seidel and Richard C Fruit, Flint, for appellant.

Jerome F. O'Rourke, Pros. Atty. for Genesee County, Flint, for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

EDWARDS, Justice

Defendant was charged with the offense of statutory rape before Genesee county circuit court. On January 14, 1959, the day set for trial, while represented by counsel he entered a plea of guilty. After full compliance with Court Rule No. 35-A and a careful examination in open court wherein defendant recited the facts pertaining to the offense in great detail and in substantial conformity to the charge as contained in the information, the circuit judge accepted the plea.

Subsequently, on February 18, 1959, defendant was brought to court for sentence and, after hearing the sentence administered to his older brother, sought to withdraw his own guilty plea, claiming that he had misunderstood his rights and that in fact he was innocent of the charge. After questioning of defendant in open court, wherein discrepancies in his new story appeared, and after hearing argument on the motion, the circuit judge denied it.

Obviously convinced of defendant's guilt, the court proceeded to sentence him. He said in this regard:

'It seems to the court that one seeking to withdraw a plea of guilty must at the time motion for leave to withdraw the plea is made state some reason why the judgment should not stand against him and that reason must amount to a fraud or an imposition on him or a misapprehension of his legal rights. He should at the very least allege and perhaps make some showing that he is not guilty of the charge to which he has pleaded.'

The court in this regard relied upon People v. Furkas, 255 Mich. 533, 238 N.W. 173. The authority of this case bas been considerably weakened, however, in subsequent cases. People v. Vasquez, 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538; People v. Machus, 321 Mich. 353, 32 N.W.2d 480.

Generally, it is considered that there is no absolute right to withdrawal of a guilty plea. People v. Case, 340 Mich. 526, 65 N.W.2d 803; People v. Banning, 329 Mich. 1, 44 N.W.2d 841. See, also, 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, § 286. But this Court's decisions suggest that the trial judge's discretion be exercised with great liberality when the motion is made prior to sentence or commencement of trial. People v. Piechowiak, 278 Mich. 550, 270 N.W. 783; People v. Stone, 293 Mich. 658, 292 N.W. 520; People v. Sheppard, 316 Mich. 665, 26 N.W.2d 557; People v. Anderson, 321 Mich. 533, 33 N.W.2d 72.

In People v. Banning, supra, 329 Mich. at page 7, 44 N.W.2d at page 844, this Court said:

'Defendant relied principally upon the line of cases in which we have held that a plea of guilty may be withdrawn at any time before sentence. People v. Anderson, 321 Mich. 533, 33 N.W.2d 72, and cases therein cited.

'The rationale behind these cases is apparent. The right to trial by jury in criminal cases is a substantial constitutional right, as are the attendant rights of confrontation, cross-examination, et cetera. 1 While these rights may be waived by the defendant, the law has erected many safeguards to protect him against his own...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • People v. Hollman, Docket No. 2663
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 28, 1968
    ...340, 342, 6 N.W.2d 538), have been overruled Sub silentio by such and other later decisions of our Supreme Court. In People v. Bencheck (1960), 360 Mich. 430, 104 N.W.2d 191, where the court (prior to the holding in Zaleski) said the trial judge's discretion to permit withdrawal of a guilty......
  • Shanks v. Wolfenbarger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • September 14, 2005
    ...648, 655 (E.D.Mich.2001)(citing United States ex rel. Scott v. Mancusi, 429 F.2d 104, 109 (2nd Cir.1970); People v. Bencheck, 360 Mich. 430, 432, 104 N.W.2d 191 (1960); People v. Harris, 224 Mich.App. 130, 131, 568 N.W.2d 149 (1997)). Therefore, unless the pleas violated a clearly-establish......
  • Coddington v. Langley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • March 15, 2002
    ...appellate counsel for failure to raise it on direct appeal. There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. People v. Bencheck, 360 Mich. 430, 104 N.W.2d 191 (1960). However, a defense of innocence is asserted at the time of a request to withdraw the plea, and the request is not obvio......
  • State v. Dicks
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1976
    ...11 Cal.3d 793, 114 Cal.Rptr. 596, 523 P.2d 636 (1974); Commonwealth v. Santos, 450 Pa. 492, 301 A.2d 829 (1973); People v. Bencheck, 360 Mich. 430, 104 N.W.2d 191 (1960); see also People v. Riebe, 40 Ill.2d 565, 241 N.E.2d 313 ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT