People v. Johnson
Decision Date | 11 January 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 1290,No. 2,1290,2 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Duane JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Stiles & Fowler, Lansing, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald L. Reisig, Pros. Atty., Lansing, for appellee.
Before QUINN, P. J., and KAVANAGH and McGREGOR, JJ.
The defendant Johnson was convicted in the Ingham County circuit Court of the crimes of forgery and uttering and publishing upon his plea of guilty. He was sentenced to concurent two-and-one-half to fourteen year terms on each count. The record shows that when defendant was first brought before the circuit court for arraignment, on November 13, 1964, he was represented by counsel. His counsel waived reading of the information and stated that the defendant understood the charge and desired to stand mute. Accordingly, the court entered a plea of not guilty for the defendant. On December 28, 1964, defendant was again brought before the circuit bench. The attorney had withdrawn from the case but defendant, after being informed of his right to appointed counsel, told the court he did not want a lawyer.
The record shows that at the second arraignment the trial judge fully informed the defendant about his rights to counsel and to a trial by jury or before the court without a jury, and gave him an opportunity to ask for counsel and trial. Defendant declined both. This Court has no reason to doubt that the trial judge advised defendant of the consequences of his plea, but the record is inadequate in this regard. Such advice is not recorded and was apparently given at the unrecorded conference in chambers. To avoid such inadequacies, trial courts should record all of the proceedings, whether in court or in conference in chambers. Such practice would furnish appellate courts with a record on which they can judge compliance with GCR 1963, 785.
The case comes before this Court on defendant's application for delayed appeal from his conviction in the circuit court. Defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not understandingly made because he was not informed of the charges against him during the arraignment at which his plea of guilty was accepted. The rules require the following procedure:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Taylor
...People v. Wurtz (1965), 1 Mich.App. 190, 135 N.W.2d 579; People v. Kearns (1965), 2 Mich.App. 60, 138 N.W.2d 564; People v. Johnson (1966), 2 Mich.App. 182, 139 N.W.2d 137; People v. Atkins (1966), 2 Mich.App. 199, 139 N.W.2d 325; People v. Curtis Lee Williams (1966), 2 Mich.App. 232, 139 N......
-
People v. Wade
...v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich. 267, 99 N.W.2d 347; People v. Carlisle (1969), 19 Mich.App. 680, 684, 173 N.W.2d 240; People v. Johnson (1966), 2 Mich.App. 182, 139 N.W.2d 137; People v. Perine (1967), 7 Mich.App. 292, 151 N.W.2d 876; and People v. Mason (1968), 13 Mich.App. 277, 164 N.W.2d 40......
-
People v. Nitti
...of a plea of guilty. The trial judge had the duty when asked the maximum term to define it specifically. See People v. Johnson (1966), 2 Mich.App. 182, 139 N.W.2d 137; People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich. 267, 99 N.W.2d The appellant showed surprise when he was informed of the sentence. He s......
-
People v. Melvin, Docket No. 3928
...'The defendant: Yes, sir.' The defendant relies upon People v. Hunn (1965), 1 Mich.App. 580, 137 N.W.2d 275, and People v. Johnson (1966), 2 Mich.App. 182, 139 N.W.2d 137, to sustain his claim that the plea was not 'understandingly made'. Both cases involved the crime of uttering and publis......