People v. Dawkins

• Decision Date: 27 January 1971
• Docket Number: Docket No. 8401,No. 1,1
• Citation: People v. Dawkins, 185 N.W.2d 913, 30 Mich.App. 186 (Mich. App. 1971)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest DAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 913

185 N.W.2d 913

30 Mich.App. 186

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Ernest DAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 8401.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Jan. 27, 1971.

Released for Publication April 30, 1971.

Irving Tukel, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros.Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Arthur N. Bishop, Asst. Pros.Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and R. B. BURNS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was originally charged with second-degree murder.On August 1, 1969, he pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to a term of 12 to 15 years.Defendant appeals as of right and the plaintiff moves to affirm.

Defendant, relying on Boykin v. Alabama(1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, claims that his conviction was invalid because the trial judge failed to specifically advise him as to his right against compulsory self-incrimination, and his right to confront his accusers.

It should first be noted that defendant was represented by counsel at the time he pled guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter.Counsel informed the trial judge that he had advised the plaintff as to all of his constitutional rights.

Although the Supreme Court in Boykin did say that the waiver of several federal constitutional rights are involved in the acceptance of a plea of guilty, including the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and the right to confront one's accusers, the Court did not say that a defendant must be specifically advised as to each and every constitutional right involved in his plea of guilty.The gist of the Court's decision in Boykin is that it cannot be assumed from a silent record that a defendant had a full understanding of what his plea connotes and its consequences.In People v. Taylor(1970), 383 Mich. 338, 355, 356, 175 N.W.2d 715, 723, the Michigan Supreme Court in interpreting Boykin, recognized that a trial judge is not obliged to obtain explicit and expressed waivers of each and every constitutional right before he may accept a plea of guilty.

"Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial.'

'The Court further enumerates the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers.

'The Court did not say, as some have suggested, that explicit and expressed waivers must be taken upon each of these constitutional rights before the plea can be accepted.

'The holding is more properly, that these rights are waived by the act of...