People v. Morris, Docket No. 10601
| Decision Date | 20 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 10601,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 190 N.W.2d 311,33 Mich.App. 654 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles R. MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Parvin Lee, Jr., Campbell, Lee, Kurzman & Leitman, Birmingham, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas G. Plunkett, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and FITZGERALD and QUINN, JJ.
November 6, 1963, defendant shot and killed Kenneth Beebe, a fact undenied by defendant. At the time of the offense and at time of trial, defendant was 16 years of age. The offense occurred about 1:00 P.M. on November 6, 1963, and about one and one-half hours later, defendant surrendered to the police at the scene, informed them of the location of the gun he used and where he had placed the shell casings. In addition, without interrogation and after being advised that he did not have to say anything, defendant volunteered the information that he shot Beebe.
At 3:52 P.M. November 6, 1963, defendant gave a confessional statement to the prosecuting attorney which was stenographically taken and transcribed. November 7, 1963, a petition was filed with the juvenile division of the probate court requesting that court to take jurisdiction of defendant, and the same day the prosecuting attorney petitioned the probate court to waive jurisdiction of defendant to the circuit court. November 26, 1963, after investigation and a hearing at which defendant was represented by retained counsel, the probate court waived jurisdiction to the circuit court on a charge of murder.
November 27, 1963, a complaint charging defendant with first degree murder was filed and a warrant charging defendant with the same offense issued. December 18, 1963, a preliminary examination was held at which defendant was represented by counsel of his choice. Part of the evidence offered and received at the examination was defendant's statement of November 6, 1963, taken stenographically. It was received without objection. Defendant was bound over to circuit court on a charge of murder.
December 19, 1963, an information charging defendant with first degree murder was filed and at arraignment on this charge December 23, 1963, defendant stood mute. Thereafter defendant gave notice of the defense of insanity and the cause came on for trial February 11, 1964.
A jury was selected, the prosecuting attorney made an opening statement, and four witnesses were sworn. At this point, defendant's attorney made the following statement:
'If the Court please, a few moments ago, my client had suggested that he might be willing to enter a plea. With the Court's permission, and after consulting with Mr. Lang, I have discussed possibilities of his doing so with defendant himself, with his mother, and his grandmother. This is a decision about which there might be some trepidation on the part of counsel, were it not for the fact that the defendant's intelligence, understanding of his situation are such that I can honestly state to the Court he fully understands the nature of his entering a plea here.
I have advised him that I am duty bound to proceed if it is his desire; that he has the right additionally to have his case tried to the uttermost before a jury. Notwithstanding the advice which I have given him as to his constitutional rights, I am instructed by the defendant without any pleas, without any coercion, without any inducement whatever to state to the Court that he desires to plead guilty to murder in the second degree.'
Thereafter the trial court interrogated defendant and accepted his plea to second degree murder. March 10, 1964, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment.
May 18, 1965, on defendant's petition as an indigent, trial counsel was appointed appellate counsel. Defendant's application for delayed appeal was denied by this Court November 12, 1965. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, and on December 6, 1966, the cause was remanded to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel and the presentation of a motion for new trial, People v. Morris (1966), 378 Mich. 515, 146 N.W.2d 645.
December 8, 1966, new counsel was appointed for defendant. A transcript of proceedings held February 8, 1967, indicates that sometime prior thereto defendant had instructed his attorney to abandon the motion for new trial, and to obtain verification of this fact from defendant, a hearing was scheduled for February 8, 1967. Defendant was returned from prison to the Oakland county jail February 1, 1967, and on February 7, 1967, he advised his attorney to proceed with the motion for new trial. Defendant did not appear in court February 8, 1967,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...the underlying violation was committed. See People v. Fuzi, 46 Mich.App. 204, 208, 208 N.W.2d 47, 50 (1973); People v. Morris, 33 Mich.App. 654, 659, 190 N.W.2d 311, 313-14 (1971); Turpin v. State, 89 Nev. 518, 520, 515 P.2d 1271, 1272-73 In this case the alleged violation was the rape of t......
-
People v. Norman
...with the mandates of GCR 1963, 785.3(2). People v. Dunn, 380 Mich. 693, 700--701, 158 N.W.2d 404 (1968); People v. Morris, 33 Mich.App. 654, 659, 190 N.W.2d 311 (1971). III. Did the trial court err in failing to advise the defendant of his right against self-incrimination and his right to c......
-
People v. Butler
...as to the facts of the crime and his participation therein. People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich. 267, 99 N.W.2d 347; People v. Morris (1971), 33 Mich.App. 654, 190 N.W.2d 311. The plea hearing record in this case reveals that defendant, as he was leaving a store, was fired on by the store ow......