People v. De Meerleer

• Decision Date: 04 March 1946
• Docket Number: No. 80.,80.
• Citation: 313 Mich. 548,21 N.W.2d 849
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DE MEERLEER.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

313 Mich. 548

21 N.W.2d 849

PEOPLE

v.DE MEERLEER.

No. 80.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 4, 1946.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Lenawee County; G. Arthur Rathbun, judge.

Rene De Meerleer was convicted or murder, his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

John R. Dethmers, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and Daniel J. O'Hara, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the people-appellee.

Beauchamp, Potter& Louisell, of Detroit, for defendant-appellant

BUSHNELL, Justice.

In 1932 defendant Rene DeMeerleer and one Virgil Scott were charged with murder. DeMeerleer attempted to plead guilty to murder in the second degree. The court informed him that a qualified plea could not be accepted. The record then shows the following:

‘The Court: * * * Mr. DeMeerleer, * * * if you wish to qualify your plea as to your guilt, the court not being willing to accept it, he would enter a plea of not guilty and ask you to stand trial. With that information, from the Court, do you still want to qualify your plea?

‘Mr. DeMeerleer: Just want to know whether I am guilty or not.

‘The Court: Want to know whether you are guilty or not. You know whether you were in this deal or not.

‘Mr. DeMeerleer: Yes.

‘The Court: You say guilty?

‘Spectator in the Audience: Don't say guilty, my boy. He could never commit anything. One dead. He is a good citizen, never committed a crime, seventeen years of age, good boy, never did anything. He didn't come--

‘The Court (interrupting): Understand, the Court feels sorry for parents when their children get in any trouble. I will talk with you later about it. If you will have a chair I will talk with you later about it. Gentlemen there are other counsel waiting in other matters. I believe it would be fair to them for this hearing to be held this afternoon. Would it be convenient for you?

‘Mr. Bird: I could be able to arrange for this afternoon.

‘The Court: Come in at one-thirty on that?

‘Mr. Bird: Yes, I don't know how this plea--

‘The Court: (interrupting) He said he would plead guilty on the information. That's what I understood you to say?

‘Mr. Bird: He still qualified his plea.

‘The Court: You said you plead guilty. Is that correct?

‘Mr. DeMeerleer: Yes.

‘The Court: He has. That's correct.

‘Mr. Bird: The people are ready for the hearing in the case.

‘The Court: Come back at one-thirty.

‘(Afternoon session: 2:00 P.M.)

‘The Court: Gentlemen, are you ready with the proofs to determine the degree?

‘Mr. Bird: We are ready.’

The people then called three eyewitnesses, each testifying, in substance, that Scott and DeMeerleer drove into a gas station, where the attendant filled their car; they then secured some pop and candy bars and without paying for the gasoline or candy, shot the attendant, Brown, and drove away. Brown died a few minutes thereafter. The sheriff of Lenawee county testified regarding statements taken from both men. Following the testimony the trial judge had a private interview in his office with each defendant and, upon their return to the courtroom, the record shows the following:

‘Virgil Scott and Rene DeMeerleer, on your plea of guilty you stand before this Court convicted of murder. I have talked with you in my office. You have talked with me. Before I pass sentence, is there anything more other than what you have already said that you wish to say to me?

‘Mr. DeMeerleer: No, sir, your Honor.

‘(Mr. Scott shook his head.)

‘* * * Now, I come to my sentence. The sentence of this Court is, Mr. Virgil Scott and Mr. Rene DeMeerleer, these words apply equally to each of you-shall be and remain confined in the Michigan Branch State Prison at Marquette, Michigan, in solitary confinement and at hard labor for the rest of your natural lives.’

Neither Scott nor DeMeerleer were represented by counsel, nor did they request the court to permit them to confer with counsel, or have counsel appointed for them.

In November of 1944, DeMeerleer, in his own person, filed a motion, ‘asking leave to file a delayed motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and for an order to vacate the judgment and sentence, permitting of a new trial.’ The trial judge filed a written opinion on November 24, 1944, and denied this motion.

On February 1, 1945, defendant, through counsel, filed another motion ‘for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial.’ The record shows that on February 5, 1945, counsel appeared and argued this motion. The colloquy between court and counsel is shown, concluding with this statement by the trial judge: ‘I am satisfied with that former opinion (meaning on DeMeerleer's previous motion) together with the remarks I have made this morning.’ Included in the remarks referred to is the following:

‘The Court (interrupting): If our Supreme Court wants to let cold blooded murderers free, they are goint to do it. I am not going to do it.

‘Mr. Louisell: I didn't ask this Court to let cold blooded murderers free.

‘The Court: I never had anybody before me that was more completely a cold blooded murderer than this fellow. The man was arraigned with a fellow by the name of Virgil Scott. Virgil Scott was driving the car, and didn't have the gun, didn't shoot. Wouldn't it be a travesty on justice to grant this fellow a new trial, who shot the gun, and say to Virgil Scott, ‘You stay in prison the rest of your life.’ Is there anything any crazier that than?'

We granted defendant's application for leave to appeal from the sentence entered on May 16, 1932, in which application DeMeerleer asserted the following grounds and reasons for appeal:

‘I. That the court erred in its Opinion Order of February 5, 1945, denying defendant-appellant's motion for Leave to File Delayed Motion for New Trial and New Trial. * * *

‘II. That the court erred in sentencing defendant-appellant on May 16, 1932 without there having been a free and voluntary plea of guilty entered or the defendant convicted of the charge alleged in the information.

‘III. That the court erred in sentencing defendant-appellant on May 16, 1932 where the court had effectively denied defendant his right to a public trial by an impartial jury and assistance of counsel, all as guaranteed defendant under Article XIV of the United States Constitution and Sections 12, 13, and 19 of Article II of the Michigan Constitution.’

In appellant's brief the following questions are proposed:

‘I. Did the trial court err in denying defendant-appellant's Motion for Leave to File Delayed Motion for New Trial?

‘II. Did the trial court err when it sentenced defendant on the theory that the defendant had pleaded guilty to murder?

‘III. Had the defendant-appellant freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge of murder at the time the court sentenced him to life imprisonment?

‘IV. Was defendant-appellant denied at the time of sentence and prior thereto his constitutional right to representation by counsel, a public trial and orderly and due process of law?’

It should be noted that at no stage of the proceedings from 1932 to the present time has DeMeerleer denied the killing Brown.

We are mindful of the expressions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent ...