People v. Lepper

• Decision Date: 02 July 1883
• Citation: 51 Mich. 196,16 N.W. 377
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LEPPER.

16 N.W. 377

51 Mich. 196

PEOPLE v. LEPPER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1883

Upon examination of the proceedings, as disclosed by the record in this case, it appears that the prisoner was fully informed of the charge in the information, and of the effect of a plea of guilty, before pleading guilty, and that the provisions of the statute (Sess.Laws 1875, p. 140) were properly complied with by the court before passing sentence.

Error to Mecosta.

J.J. Van Riper, for the people.

Blanchard & Cagwin, for defendant and appellant.

SHERWOOD J.

The respondent was informed against for grand larceny, convicted on his own plea of guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment at Ionia for four years, on the fifteenth day of March, 1882. He now brings error, and alleges that the circuit judge, after his plea of guilty was made, and before giving judgment, did not make any investigation into the nature of the case, and the circumstances of the plea of guilty, to satisfy said judge that said plea was made freely, with full knowledge by the respondent of the nature of the accusation against him and without undue influence, as required by the statute. This is the only error alleged. The statute referred to says "That whenever any person shall plead guilty to any information filed against him in any circuit court, it shall be the duty of the judge of such court, before pronouncing judgment or sentence upon such plea, to become satisfied after such investigation as he may deem necessary for that purpose respecting the nature of the case, and the circumstances of such plea, that said plea was made freely with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence; and whenever said judge shall have reason to doubt the truth of such plea of guilty, it shall be his duty to vacate the same, direct a plea of not guilty to be entered, and order a trial of the issue thus formed." Sess.Laws 1875, p. 140.

It appears from the record that when the party was arraigned he was in charge of the sheriff, and the information was distinctly read over to him in open court and he was fully apprised of its contents, and of the charge therein contained, and when asked by the court whether he pleaded thereto guilty or not guilty, said that he pleaded guilty. After making this plea he was informed by the judge that in case his plea of guilty was entered to the information he would not be entitled to a trial, and in that case it would be the only duty of the court to sentence him to one of the state's prisons, without trial, for such time as the court might see fit to fix within the law. The respondent then stated that he understood that, and he was then remanded into the custody of the sheriff to await sentence; that after this the court inquired of the under-sheriff as to what he knew of the alleged offense, and how it was committed, and what statement respondent had made to him, if any, while he was bringing him from the west, and was informed that respondent told the under-sheriff that he was guilty, and...