People v. Hobbs, Docket No. 24125

• Decision Date: 25 March 1976
• Docket Number: Docket No. 24125
• Citation: 242 N.W.2d 535,68 Mich.App. 239
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Edward HOBBS, Defendant-Appellant. 68 Mich.App. 239, 242 N.W.2d 535
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 535

242 N.W.2d 535

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Edward HOBBS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 24125.

68 Mich.App. 239, 242 N.W.2d 535

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 25, 1976.

Released for Publication June 11, 1976.

[68 MICHAPP 240] Reid & Reid by Joseph D. Reid, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Raymond L. Scodeller, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., P.J., and D. E. HOLBROOK and T. M. BURNS, JJ.

D. E. HOLBROOK, Judge.

Defendant and two codefendants were charged with one count of armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797, and one count of breaking and entering, M.C.L.A. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305. However, pursuant to a plea bargain, the defendant and his two codefendants pled guilty to an added count of assault with intent to rob, armed, M.C.L.A. § 750.89; M.S.A. § 28.284. The plea was accepted on February 18, 1975. On March 14, 1975, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of 5 to 10 years in prison.

The defendant appeals as of right contending that his plea-based conviction must be reversed because there allegedly was no factual basis for it.

Defendant asserts that assault with intent to rob while being armed is a specific intent crime. The requisite intent is an essential element of the [68 MICHAPP 241] crime and is expressly mentioned in the statutory description of the crime. However, in the present case, the defendant stated that he intended to obtain the return of certain money that he had delivered to the victims earlier in the day of the alleged offense. The money had been used to purchase cocaine from the victims, which defendant claimed was defective. The defendant stated that he was simply trying to get his money back, not steal anything.

The plaintiff asserts that the mere indication of a claim of right is not sufficient to negate criminal responsibility. The defendant's claim of right must be legally recognizable and made in good faith. In the instant case, the defendant's claim was neither legally tenable nor bona fide. Purchase of a controlled substance like cocaine does not create the usual contract rights that normally arise out of a sales transaction. The law will not recognize the attempt to enforce those rights.

One of the codefendants indicated that he had no claim to the money taken from the victims. The other codefendant indicated that they originally went to the place to purchase drugs, but once they arrived they decided to take the drugs and some money.

The court rule requires only substantial support for the defendant's guilt, not conclusive proof of the crime charged.

A factual basis for a plea of guilty is required by GCR 1963, 785.7(3), which provides as follows:

'(3) Determining Factual Basis for Plea.

'(a) The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere until it is satisfied that a crime was committed.

'(b) The court shall not accept a plea of guilty until it is satisfied that a crime was committed and, through [68 MICHAPP 242] personal interrogation of the defendant, that defendant participated therein.

'(c) If defendant's description of his actions and any otherwise admissible evidence presented to the court on the record during the plea taking proceedings would not substantially support a finding that defendant is in fact guilty of the charged offense or the offense to which he is pleading, the plea shall be rejected by the court.'

An examination of the plea transcript shows a joint arraignment of the three defendants in the instant case, and further indicates that the defendant stated that he went to the place of the alleged crime for the purpose of recovering money that he had paid for some bad drugs.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently decided a case which involved a defendant who was charged with armed robbery in a situation similar to the one in the instant case. In People v. Holcomb, 395 Mich. 326, 235 N.W.2d 343 (1975), the defendant testified that he had gone to the victim's room seeking the return of money that had been paid for bad drugs. The Supreme Court stated, Holcomb, supra, 333, 235 N.W.2d 343, 346, as follows:

'Felonious intent is a requisite element of armed robbery. This Court, in reversing a conviction in People v. Henry, 202 Mich. 450, 455, 168 N.W. 534 (1918), said:

"If the defendant in good faith believed that the money which he demanded was his money, and that he was entitled to its possession, he...