People v. Crane, 89.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1949
• Docket Number: No. 89.,89.
• Citation: 323 Mich. 646,36 N.W.2d 170
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CRANE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

323 Mich. 646

36 N.W.2d 170

PEOPLE

v.CRANE.

No. 89.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 28, 1949.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Berrien County, in Chancery; Edward A. Westin. Judge.

Reginald Crane was convicted, on a plea of guilty, of breaking and entering in the nighttime. From an order denying the defendant's motion for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and to file a motion for a new trial, he appeals.

Order affirmed.

BUSHNELL, J., and SHARPE, C. J., dissenting.

Before the Entire Bench.

George S. Keller, of Niles, for appellant.

Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen. of Lansing, and Joseph E. Killian, Pros, Atty. of Berrien County, of St. Joseph, for the People.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Two meritorious questions are discussed in defendant's brief: (1) Was defendant's plea of guilty ‘made freely, with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence’?; (2) Did the sentencing judge, as required by statute, Comp.Laws 1929, § 17328, Stat.Ann. § 28.1058, make investigation respecting the nature of the case and the circumstances of the plea of guilty and become satisfied that it was freely and understandingly made, without undue influence?

To the statement of facts in Mr. Justice Bushnell's opinion should be added the following:

The information charged defendant with the offense of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to steal and stealing property of a value of $500. Upon arraignment in circuit court the judge explained to defendant the nature of the offense charged against him and advised him that he had the privilege of pleading not guilty or standing mute, in which case the court would enter a plea of not guilty, and that the case, in either event, would be put down for trial, or that defendant might plead guilty, in which event there would be no trial, but an investigation by the probation officer, after which sentence would be imposed. Thereupon the following occurred:

‘The Court: I ask you in the light of that how you wish to plead?

‘Respondent Crane: May I ask one thing, I think there is a mistake there in the figures. I think it should be $50.00 instead of $500.00. I intend to make restitution, I want that corrected, but I am guilty of the charge.

‘The Court: So far as the offense is concerned it is immaterial whether $50 or $500, but the exact figure will be checked undoubtedly when the Probation Officer checks with you.

‘Respondent Crane: Guilty.

‘The Court: All right, a plea of guilty will be received.’

The following appears in the opinion of the sentencing judge denying defendant's first motion for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and to file a motion for new trial:

‘When respondent pleaded guilty on March 29th, the order was made in open court, in his presence, that he was being remanded back to jail to await investigation and report by the probation officer. A most thorough report was made and furnished the court by the probation officer. More than two weeks elapsed after plea and before sentence. The court not only conferred privately with respondent to assure itself that his plea was knowingly and freely made, but the court also held a joint conference with the probation officer, the prosecuting officer, and a representative of the sheriff's office having this case in charge.

‘The investigation made by the court disclosed not only his guilt in the instant case, but that he also used a small child in its accomplishment, evidenced by finger prints of the child on the broken window pane, and the confirming statement of the child, his child, who had travelled with him on his depredations from Texas to Michigan. He made no attempt to deny his guilt; his only plea was for mercy because of his family, and that he be not sentenced as a third or fourth offender.

‘* * * he (defendant) gave a statement to the Berrien County officers, which was taken stenographically, question and answer, by the official county stenographer.

‘That statement reveals why he wanted to be assured that he would be charged with B & E nite time, and charged with one offense only, and which was not to be ‘supplemented nor * * * beyond which might be given any first offender.’

‘That statement shows that he had committed a string of innumerable breaking and enterings from Texas to Michigan, with detours into Colorado, Iowa, and Indianapolis, Indiana. More light is thrown upon his desire for assurance to be treated as a first offender by his FBI finger print record, which is set forth in the report of investigation made by the Probation Officer of Berrien County in connection with the offense here involved, which record discloses that in 1926 in Detroit he was given 1 to 10 year sentence for a felony, U.D. A.A.; that in 1930, from Jackson, Michigan, he was given a 5 to 14 year sentence for forgery; that in 1935 in Oklahoma, he was given 3-1/2 years for forgery, 2nd degree; that in February, 1937, the St. Louis (Missouri) authorities returned him to Jackson prison; that in March, 1937, he was sentenced from Jackson, Michigan, to 7-1/2 to 15 years for escaping prison; that in August, 1940, he was sentenced from Marquette, Michigan, for 3 to 6 years for prison escape.’

After the death of the sentencing judge defendant filed a second motion for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and to file a motion for new trial, denial of which is before us on this appeal. At the hearing on that motion the Berrien county sheriff, Kubath, testified concerning defendant's confession of the offense with which he was charged, as follows:

‘And he at first denied ever being at the station or taking anything from the station, but at the time of his arrest, he had a cash register, and also some other articles taken from this gas station and when he was confronted with that evidence he later on admitted to me at the jail he had put his little boy in the station, broken a window and put the boy in the station and the boy went around the front door and open the door so he could get into the station and he had taken this cash register along with other articles out of the station and put them in his car and headed toward Kalamazoo or Battle Creek with them.’

The statement in the sentencing judge's opinion that he conferred with defendant before sentence and assured himself that defendant's plea was knowingly and freely made is not to be lightly disregarded. People v. Palm, 245 Mich. 396, 223 N.W. 67. It is assailed by a defendant, with a record as above detailed, who apparently claims a conspiracy by and between state police officers, the sheriffs' departments of two counties, an attorney, a prosecuting attorney, a municipal judge and a circuit judge to railroad him to prison. Concerning his claim in that regard we quote from plaintiff's brief (figures in parentheses refer to pages in the printed record):

‘* * * Defendant in his oral testimony claimed that commencing with his arrest in Marshall on March 1, 1943, he was threatened and brow-beat by two officers from Kalamazoo (25); that Detective Beck threatened to hang a murder on him (26); that the Marshall officers refused to let him consult an attorney (27), that Detective Beck suggested he fabricate a criminal confession (27); that his acquaintance and perhaps attorney, * * *, who witnessed Defendant's Exhibit A at the request of Defendant, was drunk at the time he witnessed it even though * * * (he), by Defendant's own testimony, had come to the Marshall Jail at the request of Defendant (28), that Sheriff Hastings of Berrien County kept Defendant in a padded cell for three days and three nights without anything to eat (31), that Sheriff Hastings refused to let Defendant see his wife (32), that Judge Hammond of the Municipal Court of the City of Benton Harbor, refused to inform Defendant of the charge upon which he was brought before said magistrate (32), that Judge Hammond permitted Defendant to be brought before him without a complaint or warrant having been prepared or executed (32, 33), that Prosecuting Attorney Karl Zick immediately following Defendant's arraignment in Circuit Court, took away from Defendant his copy of the information (34), that Judge Evans, just prior to sentence and in a private interview, led Defendant to believe he was to receive a sentence of 1 to 15 years by doodling with a pencil (34, 35), and that Chief Deputy Sheriff Kubath of Berrien County obtained information from Defendant by threatening him with a beating (41).’

An examination of defendant's testimony substantiates the statement in the trial court's opinion that:

‘* * * the respondent, to put it mildly, is not to be trusted to tell the truth whenever it will conflict with his own purposes or desires.’

Defendant, 41 years of age, not only was a man with much experience with crime and criminal proceedings in the courts, but had graduated from high school, had two years in college, attended a medical school, and, as he put it, ‘had 11 years training in various prisons around the country.’

Let it be said at the outset that defendant makes no claim that his plea was not understandingly made. Was it made freely, voluntarily and without undue influence, or was it made, as defendant claims, ‘under the compulsion of defendant's Exhibit A’? The Exhibit did not call for a plea of guilty to any charge, but only a written statement regarding defendant's recent crimes. The exhibit, or so-called deal with state police detective Beck, did not serve to persuade defendant to give such a statement to Beck. On the contrary, after he had not seen Beck for a week and had denied his guilt of the offense to the Berrien County sheriff, he finally made his confession of recent crimes and admitted his guilt of the offense here involved only after he was confronted by the sheriff with the stolen articles found in defendant's automobile at the time of his arrest; and concerning this confession, he testified:

‘As a matter of fact I gave this statement of my so-called recent crimes to Mr. Kubath (sheriff),...