People v. Blue, Docket No. 104082
| Decision Date | 30 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 104082 |
| Citation | 444 N.W.2d 226,178 Mich.App. 537 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward BLUE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Robert E. Weiss, Pros. Atty., and Donald A. Kuebler, Chief, Appellate Div., for the People.
Ivor R. Jones, Flint, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and HOOD and GRIBBS, JJ.
Defendant pled guilty but mentally ill to assault with intent to commit armed robbery, M.C.L. Sec. 750.89; M.S.A. Sec. 28.284, and was sentenced to serve twenty to forty years in prison. After this Court set aside defendant's plea, our Supreme Court accepted leave on the prosecution's petition and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine if defendant's plea was acceptable in light of a previously omitted psychiatric report. People v. Blue, 428 Mich. 684, 411 N.W.2d 451 (1987). On September 21, 1987, the trial court, after review of the psychiatric report, held that defendant's plea was properly accepted and accordingly affirmed the conviction. Defendant appeals as of right.
Defendant first argues that error occurred in the remand proceedings because a new plea-taking hearing should have been conducted after remand. We disagree. Had the Supreme Court felt such a hearing was necessary, it would have ordered one. Defendant's case can be likened to those guilty plea cases which have been remanded to allow the prosecution to show the missing element in order to establish a factual basis for the plea. Blue, supra. Here, the only procedural flaw in the original plea-taking proceeding was that the trial court did not consider the psychiatric report, which the Supreme Court's directions on remand intended to cure. It is fundamental law that the last utterance of an appellate court determines the law of the case. People v. Whisenant, 19 Mich.App. 182, 189, 172 N.W.2d 524 (1969). It is the duty of the trial court, on remand, to comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court according to its true intent and meaning. People v. Bellanca, 43 Mich.App. 577, 579, 204 N.W.2d 547 (1972), lv. den. 389 Mich. 753 (1972). Here, the trial court was directed by the Supreme Court to reconsider defendant's plea in light of the psychiatric report. The trial court did so. It was not error for the trial court to comply strictly with the Supreme Court's directions on remand.
Defendant next argues that he should have been provided court-appoin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Collins
...completely independent from defendant's jury trial, the presence of counsel was not constitutionally required. People v. Blue, 178 Mich.App. 537, 539, 444 N.W.2d 226 (1989). Lastly, defendant claims that his right to be present at all proceedings was violated because he was not present when......
-
People v. Spears
... ... Appeals, entered October 15, 2018 (Docket No. 344921). Our ... Supreme Court also denied defendant's application for ... leave to ... opportunity to show "the missing element"). See ... also People v Blue , 178 Mich.App. 537, 539; 444 ... N.W.2d 226 (1989) ("Defendant's case can be likened ... ...
-
People v. Davis, Docket No. 309525.
...to the scope of the remand order.” People v. Canter, 197 Mich.App. 550, 567, 496 N.W.2d 336 (1992), citing People v. Blue, 178 Mich.App. 537, 539, 444 N.W.2d 226 (1989). “[I]f an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal question......
-
People v. Canter
...a case is remanded by an appellate court, proceedings on remand are limited to the scope of the remand order. People v. Blue, 178 Mich.App. 537, 539, 444 N.W.2d 226 (1989). Because the issues sought to raise were outside the scope of this Court's limited order of remand, and because jurisdi......