People v. Mason

• Decision Date: 24 September 1968
• Docket Number: Docket No. 3840,No. 3,3
• Citation: People v. Mason, 164 N.W.2d 407, 13 Mich.App. 277 (Mich. App. 1968)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coleridge Taylor MASON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 407

164 N.W.2d 407

13 Mich.App. 277

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Coleridge Taylor MASON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 3840.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

Sept. 24, 1968.

Released for Publication Feb. 7, 1969.

Coleridge Taylor Mason, Jr., in pro. per.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., Lansing, Lew A. Kidder, Pros.Atty., Lake County, Baldwin, for appellee.

Before QUINN, P.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and LEVIN, JJ.

LEVIN, Judge.

The defendant was charged and convicted in 1960 of breaking and entering in the nighttime ¹ upon his plea of guilty at the arraignment on the information.Before accepting the plea the trial judge explained to the defendant that he was charged with breaking and entering a certain cottage in the nighttime for the purpose of committing a larceny therein and advised the defendant that a person convicted of that offense might be sent to prison for a maximum term of 15 years, to which the defendant responded:

'A.I understand everything.There is a mention--the time of entering was in the daytime--not in the night.

'Q.You are charged with entering in the nighttime.

'A.I understand that.'²

When asked how he wished to plead, the defendant stated:

'I am guilty of the charge.I am sorry it happened.I realize I violated the laws of society and am ready to make restitution any way I can.'

The defendant's guilty plea was accepted and thereafter he was placed upon probation for 2 1/2 years, one of the conditions of probation being that he serve the first 60 days in the Lake county jail.Subsequently, the defendant was convicted of violating a condition of probation and he was sentenced to a term of 1 1/2 years to 15 years in State prison.

An examination of the colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant at the time he pled guilty shows the trial judge did not ascertain that the offense to which the defendant offered to plead guilty had in fact been committed by the defendant.

In People v. Perine(1967), 7 Mich.App. 292, 294, 151 N.W.2d 876, 877, the record, as here, contained no examination of the accused by the trial judge respecting the facts of the crime and defendant's participation in its commission.This, said our Court, was error:

'This noncompliance with GCR 1963, 785.3(2) is fatal to the validity of the plea.Whether a defendant is represented by counsel or not such examination is required.People v. Barrows(1959), 358 Mich. 267, 99 N.W.2d 347.'

In People v. Barrows(1959), 358 Mich. 267, 272, 99 N.W.2d 347, 350, the Court held:

'The direct questioning of a defendant by the trial judge on plea of guilty is required by the rule for the purpose of establishing the crime and the participation therein of the person pleading guilty.This is a precaution against involuntary or induced false pleas of guilty, and against subsequent false claims of innocence.'

The Barrows Court also observed:

'The rule is designed to require reasonable ascertainment of the truth of the plea.'

In the case at bar, not only did the trial judge fail to conduct the required inquiry, it affirmatively appears the defendant asserted, or attempted to assert, that the offense occurred in the daytime, not in the nighttime.³

The failure to have established facts showing that the defendant committed the crime to which he pled guilty makes it necessary to set aside the conviction.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

1C.L.1948, § 750.110(Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.305).The distinction between daytime and nighttime breaking and entering was eliminated by P.A.1964, No. 133.

2The trial judge also explained to the defendant before accepting his guilty...