People v. Lewandowski
| Decision Date | 23 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 18598--9,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. LEWANDOWSKI, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Andary, Detroit, for defendant-appellant; J. Thomas McGovern, St. Clair, of counsel.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Peter E. Deegan, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and BASHARA and ALLEN, JJ.
We granted rehearing in this matter to determine the propriety of that portion of our previous opinion, released January 28, 1975, which dealt with the applicable standards to be applied to a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. We previously held that the effect of GCR 1963, 785.7(4), which applied to defendant's motion to withdraw because the motion was made after June 1, 1973, was to modify the 'great liberality' standard. We held that under that court rule, the standard for withdrawal of a plea after June 1, 1973, was whether the trial court had abused its discretion in deciding defendant's motion. We were in error, but our recognition of such does not change the result of our previous opinion, and defendant's conviction shall remain affirmed.
On December 23, 1974, the Michigan Supreme Court issued the following order:
People v. Matthews, 393 Mich. 771 (1974).
Our examination of the Matthews lower court record has disclosed that Matthews pled guilty to assault with intent to commit armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.89; M.S.A. § 28.284, on October 23, 1973. On December 4, 1973, defendant moved to withdraw his plea, the request was denied, and he was sentenced the same day. Matthews applied the 'great liberality' standard 1 to a post-June 1, 1973, motion to withdraw, and therefore we conclude that we erred in stating that GCR 1963, 785.7(4) had modified that standard. Thus, we accept the proposition that the liberal standard for withdrawal has remained unchanged by the court rule.
However, we reiterate our previous holding that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewandowski v. Makel
...v. Bencheck, 360 Mich. 430, 104 N.W.2d 191 (1960), and People v. Zaleski, 375 Mich. 71, 133 N.W.2d 175 (1965)." People v. Lewandowski, 60 Mich.App. 455, 231 N.W.2d 392 (1975) (quoting from Matthews, 231 N.W.2d at 637). Lewandowski's attorneys appealed this decision to the Michigan Supreme C......
-
People v. Love
... ... Some discussion of recent cases concerning presentence motions to withdraw pleas is in order ... The Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on presentence motions to withdraw pleas of guilty or nolo contendere came in People v. Lewandowski,[72 MICHAPP 417] 394 Mich. 529, 232 N.W.2d 173 (1975), where it was held that the standard by which such motions should be decided was that enunciated in People v. Bencheck, 360 Mich. 430, 104 N.W.2d 191 (1960), and in People v. Zaleski, 375 Mich. 71, 133 N.W.2d 175 (1965). Although Lewandowski ... ...
-
Lewandowski v. Makel
...opinion in the case until January 1975. People v. Lewandowski, 58 Mich.App. 18, 226 N.W.2d 843 (1975), on reh'g, People v. Lewandowski, 60 Mich.App. 455, 231 N.W.2d 392 (1975). In December 1974, shortly before the court of appeals had published its opinion on petitioner's action to withdraw......
-
Moore v. Olmstead
...two opinions of this Court in that case, People v. Lewandowski, 58 Mich.App. 18, 226 N.W.2d 843 (1975), and (On Rehearing), 60 Mich.App. 455, 231 N.W.2d 392 (1975), clearly reveal that in People v. Lewandowski the defendant was professing his innocence after pleading nolo contendere. See, E......