People v. Berry
| Decision Date | 01 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 139800 |
| Citation | 497 N.W.2d 202,198 Mich.App. 123 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas BERRY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. (On Remand) |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Olga Agnello, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
State Appellate Defender by Ronald J. Bretz, for defendant.
Before REILLY, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and MARK J. CAVANAGH, JJ.
On remand by the Supreme Court for consideration of his appeal as on leave granted, 437 Mich. 973, 467 N.W.2d 599 (1991), defendant, Thomas Berry, Jr., argues that his conviction should be reversed because (1) he never personally pleaded guilty of open murder or acknowledged defense counsel's assertion of the plea and (2) the trial court did not personally question him regarding the truthfulness and voluntariness of the plea.
Contrary to defendant's first assertion, we conclude that he did assent to his counsel's assertion of a guilty plea to the charge of open murder and a request that the trial court conduct a hearing pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 750.318; M.S.A. Sec. 28.550 to determine the degree of the murder. Defendant was present in the courtroom and answered the court's questions regarding his waiver of a jury trial. Furthermore, during the degree hearing defendant acknowledged, upon questioning by his attorney, that he was pleading guilty of murder and that he was aware that the trial court would determine the degree of murder.
With regard to defendant's second assertion, we disagree that reversal is required because the trial court failed to personally question defendant to ascertain whether the plea was understandingly and voluntarily made.
At the time of defendant's plea in 1964, guidelines for the acceptance of guilty pleas were provided by statute and court rule. M.C.L. Sec. 768.35; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1058 provided (and continues to provide):
Whenever any person shall plead guilty to an information filed against him in any court, it shall be the duty of the judge of such court, before pronouncing judgment or sentence upon such plea, to become satisfied after such investigation as he may deem necessary for that purpose respecting the nature of the case, and the circumstances of such plea, that said plea was made freely, with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence. And whenever said judge shall have reason to doubt the truth of such plea of guilty, it shall be his duty to vacate the same, direct a plea of not guilty to be entered and order a trial of the issue thus formed.
The court rule, GCR 1963, 785.3(2), provided:
If the accused pleads guilty, after such plea and before sentence the court shall inform the accused of the nature of the accusation and the consequence of his plea; 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 guilty 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. Unless the court determines that the plea of guilty was so made, it shall not be accepted.
The provision of the court rule that stated that "the court shall examine the accused ... and shall ascertain that the plea was ... understandingly ... made" required that the court conduct an examination in order to determine that what the defendant actually did was a crime. People v. Taylor, 387 Mich. 209, 224, 195 N.W.2d 856 (1972). In People v. Barrows, 358 Mich. 267, 272, 99 N.W.2d 347 (1959), the Michigan Supreme Court, in reference to Court Rule No. 35A (1945), the predecessor of GCR 1963, 785.3, held the following:
The direct questioning of a defendant by the trial judge on a 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 this case, the trial court did not establish by direct questioning of defendant "the crime and the participation therein of the person pleading guilty" as required by Barrows. However, this does not require reversal. The open murder procedure used in this case, pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 750.318; M.S.A. Sec. 28.550, involved a plea, a testimonial hearing, and fact finding by the trial court. Accordingly, the analysis of a plea made pursuant to this procedure is different from the normal summary plea proceeding. See Berry v. Mintzes, 529 F.Supp. 1067, 1078, n. 18 (E.D.Mich.1981). The limitation imposed by Barrows is directed to the typical situation where a plea is offered at a summary hearing and is designed to prevent reliance on evidence that the court does not have before it when it decides whether to accept the plea. People v. Armstrong, 390 Mich. 693, 699, 213 N.W.2d 190 (1973).
In this case, the trial court heard sworn testimony regarding the crime and defendant's participation in the crime and was therefore in a position to reasonably ascertain the truth of the plea. Barrows, supra at 272, 99 N.W.2d 347. The use of sworn testimony presented at an evidentiary hearing to determine degree is an acceptable alternative to the direct questioning of defendant by the court with respect to the understanding nature of the plea in a summary plea proceeding. Therefore, we hold that defendant is not entitled to a new trial. See Armstrong, supra.
In People v. Jackson, 30 Mich.App. 173, 186 N.W.2d 40 (1971), a panel of this Court reversed the defendants' convictions because the questioning of the defendants regarding the understanding and voluntary nature of their pleas was done not by the trial court, but by defense counsel. The Court, relying on Barrows, supra, found that the examination should have been conducted by the trial judge to insure that the plea was not involuntary or false. Jackson, supra at 175, 186 N.W.2d 40.
We conclude that Jackson, which involved a summary plea proceeding, does not require reversal in this case. The trial court, after being informed by defense counsel of defendant's wish to plead guilty of open murder and request for a degree hearing, informed defendant of the charge against him. The trial court questioned defendant regarding his waiver of a jury trial and then asked him, "Has anybody made you any promise of favor or reward for your plea at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Hofbauer
...and deliberation may be inferred from the type of weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted. People v. Berry, 198 Mich.App. 123, 128, 497 N.W.2d 202 (1993); People v. Coddington, 188 Mich.App. at 600, 470 N.W.2d 478. Use of a lethal weapon will support an inference of an intent t......
-
Hardaway v. Burt, CASE NO. 13-13144
...229; 530 N.W.2d 497, 503 (1995), "including the type of weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted," People v. Berry, 198 Mich. App. 123, 128; 497 N.W.2d 202, 204 (1993). The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the relevant evidence as follows:Officer Counts testified that defend......
-
Patterson v. Davis
...and deliberation may be inferred from the type of weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted. People v. Berry, 198 Mich. App. 123, 128, 497 N.W.2d 202 (1993). Use of a lethal weapon supports an inference of an intent to kill. People v. Turner, 62 Mich. App. 467, 470, 233 N.W.2d 61......
-
Thomas v. Tribley, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-11877
...and deliberation may be inferred from the type of weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted. People v. Berry, 198 Mich. App. 123, 128, 497 N.W.2d 202 (1993). Use of a lethal weapon supports an inference of an intent to kill. People v. Turner, 62 Mich. App. 467, 470, 233 N.W.2d 61......