People v. Bumpus, 60

• Citation: 94 N.W.2d 854,355 Mich. 374
• Decision Date: 19 February 1959
• Docket Number: No. 60,60
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles BUMPUS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 854

94 N.W.2d 854

355 Mich. 374

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles BUMPUS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 60.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 19, 1959.

Michael John Mitchell, Belleville, for defendant-appellant.

Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Kenneth B. Glaser, Jr., Pros. Atty., Adrian, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

SMITH, Justice.

Upon leave granted we review the denial of the circuit court for the county of Lenawee of defendant's delayed motion for a new trial. Appellant asserts that he was denied his constitutional safeguards in a criminal prosecution. He states that, without counsel, and after intimidation and promises of leniency, he pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery unarmed, not realizing the nature of the charge. The trial court, he urges, 'was concerned only with the assumed guilt of the accused,' and not 'with the requirements of due process of law.' In particular it is asserted that the trial court ignored the requirements of C.L.1948, § 768.35 (Stat.Ann. § 28.1058) and of Court Rule, 35-A, requiring in cases of felony as follows:

'Sec. 1. Arraignment. If the accused is not represented by counsel upon arraignment, before he is required to plead the court shall advise the accused that he is entitled to a trial by jury and to have counsel, and that in case he is financially unable to provide counsel the court will, if accused so requests, appoint counsel for him. If the accused states he will procure counsel or requests that counsel be appointed, a reasonable time thereafter shall be allowed for counsel to consult with the accused before his plea shall be taken.

'Sec. 2. Imposing sentence. 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 consequences 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 record before us discloses that appellant was first brought before the court for arraignment upon Februay 27, 1956, at which time the following occurred:

'Mr. Betz [Prosecuting Attorney]: I am going to read this information to you. This is what you stand charged with here in court today, Mr. Bumpus 'Thereupon, Mr. Betz proceeded to read aloud to the respondent the information filed in this cause.

'The Court: How old are you, Mr. Bumpus?

'Respondent Bumpus: Twenty-one.

'The Court: Have you ever been before any circuit court on a felony warrant before?

'Respondent Bumpus: No, sir.

'The Court: Do you understand under our statute you don't have to say a word if you don't want to?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: Do you understand you have the right to have this matter tried by a jury if you want a jury trial?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: You understand you have the right to have an attorney to represent you if you want counsel?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: Do you understand if you don't have money that you should request the court for counsel now and if you don't have money to pay for one it is the court's duty to appoint one for you?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: You understand this charge?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes.

'The Court: How do you plead to it?

'Respondent Bumpus: Stand mute.

'The Court: All right, the court will enter a plea of not guilty. You should get an attorney and be prepared for trial sometime the last part of March.'

Appellant was returned to the bar of the court on March 5, 1956, at which time the record discloses the following colloquy between court and appellant:

'The Court: This case is also on the calendar. I think we read the information to you, haven't we, Mr. Bumpus?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: Do you want to have that information read to you again?

'Respondent Bumpus: No, sir.

'The Court: As I understand, before you stood mute?

'respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: I think we explained to you your rights to an attorney and jury trial?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: You understand this charge?

'Respondent Bumpus: Yes, sir.

'The Court: How do you plead to it?

'Respondent Bumpus: Guilty.

'The Court: What did you do, Charles?

'Respondent Bumpus: You mean what did I?

'The Court: What did you do?

'respondent Bumpus: Well, I helped plan the thing. I mean, before it happened, and I met Larry after it was over and went home with him.

'The Court: I don't know a thing about this. What happened? I mean, you're supposed to have stolen or taken some money from Bruce Osburn, not being armed, it says. Just what occurred?'

The details of the crime, as then and later ascertained by the court, were as follows '* * * before this man was sentenced I talked to him at length in chambers on the day of sentence. At that time I found out more of the details of the offense as Mr. Bumpus related them to me.

'Actually they planned to roll this man Osburn. Mr. Bumpus said he didn't want to do the job or go in the car along with him because Mr. Osburn knew him too well and he figured he wouldn't be able to get away with it. Mr. Hatt didn't know him. Mr. Hatt could take him out on a certain back road and do it and get away with it.

'Mr. Bumpus further explained to us after they met, a part of that money received--I don't remember the exact number of dollars they claimed they got--but part of the money received was used by the two of them in buying food there. They had a meal at the tavern or the next one.

'Then he claimed all he got out of the thing other than the food was his $3.00. I do further remember Mr. Hatt claimed very emphatically that Mr. Bumpus got a good deal more than that out of it.'

It thus appears affirmatively that appellant was advised of his right to counsel, at public expense, and of his right to trial by jury. He stated at two different hearings that he understood the nature of the charge made against him and we think it pertinent, to observe, with respect to appellant's understandings, that, although only 21 years of age, he was no stranger to the criminal law and its enforcement. He had been in jail testified the former sheriff, 'accounding to our records, about 12 to 13 times,' for various misdemeanors. He had, in fact, 'been trusty at different times around there.'

Both our statutes and our court rules, quoted above, require that upon a plea of guilty to an information the judge shall satisfy himself that the plea was made freely, with knowledge of its consequences, and without undue influence or promise of leniency. The form and manner of this examination by the judge has not been prescribed but is left to the discretion of the judge, to be exercised by him in the manner best suited to the parties and the offense. The topic is discussed with clarity in People v. Coates, 337 Mich. 56, 59 N.W.2d 83. In the case before us it is clear that the trial judge made such investigation, particularly with reference to the accuracy of the charge made, and was satisfied, as required. As a matter of fact ...