People v. Davis

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DETHMERS; KAVANAGH
• Citation: People v. Davis, 126 N.W.2d 725, 372 Mich. 402 (Mich. 1964)
• Decision Date: 05 March 1964
• Docket Number: No. 28,28
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Harold Frederick DAVIS and Helen Mary Lanning, Defendants and Appellants.

Page 725

126 N.W.2d 725

372 Mich. 402

The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Harold Frederick DAVIS and Helen Mary Lanning, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 28.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 5, 1964.

Albert A. Goldfarb, Detroit, for appellants.

Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Prosecuting Atty., Detroit, for the People.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Defendants had been arraigned in the recorder's court for the city of Detroit on an information charging conspiracy to commit abortion. They were present in court on the day set for trial. The people's 29 witnesses had been subpoenaed and were prepared to testify. There had been a preliminary examination and defendants and their counsel were aware of the proofs which were available to the people to prove the case. When the case was called for trial the attorney for defendants announced that they wished to plead guilty to the second count of abortion. The information then contained no second count, but the prosecuting attorney, at that juncture, moved to add a count of abortion, defendants' attorney consented, and the court so ordered. Defendant Davis thereupon entered a plea of guilty to abortion and defendant Lanning to the included offense of attempted abortion.

After accepting the guilty pleas, the court referred the matters to the probation department for report prior to sentence. The time for sentence was fixed for a day certain just 3 weeks later.

On the sentence date defendants, with their attorney, appeared for sentence. The attorney presented a letter to the court from a clinic, advising that defendant Davis was a victim of tuberculosis. The court had a number of other matters to attend to first, so that defendants and counsel waited around the court for about 3 hours. During that period the attorney was permitted to read the probation department report about defendants. The attorney formerly had worked for one of the judges of that court and knew the procedure there. Earlier that morning the attorney and the judge had coffee together and talked with each other, but nothing was said about withdrawing the plea of guilty. After the attorney had had the opportunity to read the reports, and, as the prosecuting attorney suggests, gained some impression of what the sentences were to be, the defendants were called up for sentence. Their attorney then moved for permission to withdraw their pleas of guilty. The court, referring to their conversation together earlier that morning, said, 'All you had to do was to come in this morning and tell me that the defendant desired to withdraw his plea, and that would have been all there would be to it, then.' The court went on to say, however, that the attorney had failed to do that but spent the time around the court, '* * * to read the reports over at your leisure. Now, in view of all that, I will not entertain a motion to withdraw the plea.' The judge also said, 'Well, I will say that I don't think it is proper for an attorney to come in and read the results of the examination, and especially as far as you, where you have been working for one of the Judges here, and you know the procedure here, and you know very well what the law is, wherein a defendant is allowed to withdraw his plea. Now, I don't believe that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea, after his attorney has read the Probation reports and has talked to the Judge about it.' The court then sentenced Davis to Jackson prison for a term of from 2 to 4 years and defendant Lanning to the Detroit house of correction for a term of from 1 1/2 to 2 years. Defendants appeal here. (It is to be noted that a suggestion of death since has been filed as to defendant Davis.)

For the proposition that a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty at any time before sentence defendants cite People v. Piechowiak, 278 Mich. 550, 270 N.W. 783; People v. Stone, 293 Mich. 658, 292 N.W. 520; People v. Vasquez, 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538; People v. Hollingsworth, 338 Mich. 161, 61 N.W.2d 22, and many others, including People v. Bencheck, 360 Mich. 430, 104...