People v. Barrows
| Decision Date | 25 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 82,82 |
| Citation | 99 N.W.2d 347,358 Mich. 267 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ralph Edward BARROWS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, by John H. Vander Wal, Grand Rapids, for respondent and appellant.
Joseph A. Renihan, Prosecuting Atty., Kent County, Grand Rapids, Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is an appeal on leave granted by this Court from denial of a delayed motion for new trial. In 1948, defendant, then 19 years old, was charged in the superior court of Grand Rapids with the offense of robbery armed. On November 1, 1948, the prosecuting attorney moved to dismiss the original charge and filed a charge of assault with intent to commit robbery unarmed. Defendant's counsel thereupon entered a plea of guilty to this charge and the superior court judge accepted the plea and sentenced defendant to 3 years' probation.
One of the probation conditions was that defendant leave the State of Michigan and go to live in New York with his father. This arrangement proved singularly unsuccessful. Very shortly thereafter defendant was convicted in New York State of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced as a second felony offender to 20 to 40 years.
From prison in New York State on April 14, 1958, defendant filed a motion for new trial before the Grand Rapids superior court judge, requesting leave to withdraw the plea of guilty to the former offense. The apparent purpose of the motion was to obviate the effect in lengthened sentence of New York State's multiple offender law.
The complete proceedings on acceptance of plea of guilty on November 1, 1948, were as follows:
'Arraignment and Plea Probation
State of Michigan
Superior Court of Grand Rapids
'
Ralph Edward Barrows, Respondent.
'Appearances:
Mr. Roger O. McMahon, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney;
Mr. Russell VanKouvering, Attorney for Respondent.
'Mr. VanKouvering: There is no objection to the amendment.
'Mr. McMahon: It is in the form of a second count and upon a plea of guilty the Deople will move to nolle prosse the first count in the information.
'The Court: Have you explained that to the young man?
'Mr. Van Kouvering: Yes, sir.
'The Court: That is the second count, charged with attempt.
'The Court: How old are you, young man?
'The Respondent: Nineteen.
'The Court: What is your address?
'The Mother: 419 Brenner Street, Crand Rapids, N.E.
'The Mother: That is correct.
Proceedings on plea of guilty to a criminal charge were governed in 1948, as at present, by Michigan Court Rule No. 35-A 1 which provides:
'In every prosecution wherein the accused is charged with a felony the trial court shall conform to the following practice:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
'This rule is mandatory but failure to comply therewith shall not be considered jurisdictional.'
Long after the event defendant contends that the trial judge failed to follow the mandate of the Rule providing 'and regardless of whether he is represented by counsel, the court shall examine the accused, not necessarily under oath, and as a condition of accepting the plea of builty and imposing sentence shall ascertain that the plea was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency.'
Our courts do not look with favor on long-delayed motions for new trials. We are aware that the practical problems of prosecuting an offense after the passage of a decade may well prove insuperable and that the people's case may be defeated by death or absence of witnesses. Such motions rest within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse is shown. People v. Crane, 323 Mich. 646, 36 N.W.2d 170; People v. Vasquez, 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538.
Is is plain, however, that in this case the mandatory provisions of Rule 35-A were not complied with. The direct questioning of a defendant by the trial judge on plea of guilty is required by the rule for the purpose of establishing the crime and the participation therein of the person pleading guilty. This is a precaution against involuntary or induced false pleas of guilty, and against subsequent false claims of innocence.
In the present situation there are facts which establish an obvious inducement for the plea. In addition, the defendant was young and this was his first experience with criminal cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullreed v. Kropp
...N.W. 418. The rationale of this requirement is that a reasonable ascertainment of the truth of the plea must be made. People v. Barrows, 358 Mich. 267, 272, 99 N.W.2d 347. Michigan statutes and Court rules require that the Court not accept the plea if it has reason to doubt its truth. 25 Mi......
-
People v. Taylor
...courts. The second issue is whether the trial judge in this case met the standards of Court Rule No. 35A (1945) and People v. Barrows, 358 Mich. 267, 99 N.W.2d 347 (1959) in taking a 1960 guilty plea. The facts of the originally charged offense, breaking and entering a business place in the......
-
People v. Earegood, Docket No. 2755
...guilt to the lesser offense to which he is offered the opportunity to plead guilty, he will not be allowed to do so. People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich. 267, 99 N.W.2d 347. See, also, additional cases collected in People v. Byrd, ante, footnote 23.21 Harrison v. United States (1968) 392 U.S......
-
People v. Mauch
...disclose any mention of the asportation 3 of the kidnapping victims, the plea is fatally defective under the rule of People v. Barrows, 358 Mich. 267, 99 N.W.2d 347 (1959). Barrows, however does not stand for the proposition that a guilty plea record which fails to disclose mention of each ......