People v. Nagle
| Decision Date | 11 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket Nos. 18756,19221,3 |
| Citation | 229 N.W.2d 446,59 Mich.App. 345 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur NAGLE, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Loeks, Buth & Wood by George S. Buth, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and QUINN and O'HARA, * JJ.
Defendant Arthur Nagle was originally charged with attempted safe-breaking, M.C.L.A. § 750.531; M.S.A. § 28.799, and possession of a controlled substance (morphine), M.C.L.A. § 335.341(4)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(4)(a). These charges arose from the robbery of Middleton's Pharmacy in Grand Rapids in which money and drugs were taken from a safe. These charges were tried separately before different judges.
Prior to trial on the safe-breaking charge, defendant filed a motion to quash the information. The motion was denied. Trial on that charge began on July 30, 1973, but ended in a mistrial on August 1, 1973. On August 20, 1973, the information was amended to include a second count of breaking and entering. M.C.L.A. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305. On rearraignment on that same date, defendant pled guilty to the amended charge, and the safe-breaking charge was dismissed. This plea to the amended charge was the result of a plea bargaining agreement, with the understanding that if defendant pled guilty to the amended charge of breaking and entering, the charge of safe-breaking would be dismissed. Furthermore, defendant agreed to plead guilty to the possession charge providing a felony charge in Detroit was dismissed. The trial court questioned the defendant and after determining that the plea was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, accepted said plea. Defendant was subsequently sentenced from 4 to 10 years in prison, said sentence to run concurrently with that imposed following conviction for possession of morphine.
As to the second charge of possession of morphine, defendant was originally arraigned on March 16, 1973, at which time he pled guilty to the charge of possession of morphine. Defendant was sentenced from 2 to 4 years in prison to run concurrently with his earlier sentence. Defendant now appeals both convictions as of right.
Defendant contends that both of his guilty pleas should be set aside. He argues that his guilty plea to breaking and entering was improperly accepted because the trial court erred in deciding the merits of his pretrial motion to dismiss the safe-breaking charge and that this fact influenced his plea. As to his guilty plea to possession of morphine, defendant claims that it was improperly taken since it was made as part of the plea bargain in the breaking and entering case. We disagree.
It has long been held in this State that a plea of guilty waives error committed by a trial court in rulings on defense motions made before the plea is offered and accepted. People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436, 440, 212 N.W.2d 922 (1973), People v. Wickham, 41 Mich.App. 358, 360, 200 N.W.2d 339 (1972), People v. Catlin, 39 Mich.App. 106, 107--108, 197 N.W.2d 137 (1972). The only defects which will be reviewed on the merits following a guilty plea are those that are jurisdictional. People v. Killingbeck, 49 Mich.App. 380, 383, 212 N.W.2d 256 (1973). Therefore, defendant may not now argue the merits of his convictions before this Court.
Defendant next claims that the trial court committed reversible error by accepting his plea of guilty to breaking and entering because a sufficient factual basis for the plea was not established. Defendant argues that it was not established on the record that there was a 'breaking'.
The defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Parney, Docket No. 27098
...to stand trial. The prosecutor responds that defendant waived this error by his subsequent plea of guilty. See People v. Nagle, 59 Mich.App. 345, 229 N.W.2d 446 (1975) and People v. Miller, 62 Mich.App. 495, 233 N.W.2d 629 (1975). Based on our Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in People ......
-
People v. Farley
...should furnish an exception to the plea-waiver doctrine. A concise statement of this doctrine is found in People v. Nagle, 59 Mich.App. 345, 347, 229 N.W.2d 446, 448 (1975): "It has long been held in this State that a plea of guilty waives error committed by a trial court in rulings[75 MICH......