People v. Pisoni

• Decision Date: 28 January 1926
• Docket Number: Nos. 120,121.,s. 120
• Citation: 233 Mich. 462,206 N.W. 986
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PISONI. SAME v. SMITH.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

233 Mich. 462

206 N.W. 986

PEOPLE

v.PISONI.

SAME

v.SMITH.

Nos. 120, 121.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 28, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Harvey Tappan, Judge.

Frank Pisoni and John Smith were convicted of violating the prohibition law, and they bring error. Judgment vacated and set aside, and accused given opportunity to withdraw plea of guilty and plead not guilty.

Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Anthony Maiullo, of Detroit, for appellants.

Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Soutar, Pros. Atty., and Laurie O. Telfer, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Port Huron, for the People.

BIRD, J.

Defendants were arrested on April 11, 1924, in St. Clair county for a violation of the prohibition law. The arrest was made upon private property and without warrant. A search was made without a search warrant, and a quantity of beer seized. The same day defendants were taken before a justice of the peace, anc charged with illegal possession of 20 cases of beer. They pleaded guilty to the charge, and later the same day they were taken into the circuit court before Hon. Harvey Tappan, and arraigned on the same charge, to which defendants pleaded guilty.

The defendants were remanded to jail, and on the following day, April 12, Mr. William J. Donovan, an attorney of Port Huron, requested permission of Judge Tappan to interview defendant Pisoni. This request was refused, as well as a like request made two days later on April 14th. Mr. Anthony Maiullo, an attorney of Detroit, employed by Pisoni's sister, called at the jail, and requested permission to interview Pisoni, but was informed that he would first have to have an order from the circuit judge. This order was obtained from Judge Law. When it was presented at the jail, he was sent back to Judge Law, who informed him that Judge Tappan must be seen before Pisoni could be interviewed. Mr. Maiullo saw Judge Tappan, who explained that the defendants had pleaded guilty, and no one could see them lest they changed their pleas to ‘not guilty’ and put the county to the expense of a trial.

On Wednesday, April 16th, the defendants were taken before the circuit court, Judge Tappan presiding. Attorneys Donovan and Maiullo renewed their requests to interview defendant Pisoni. These requests were refused, and then they made statements in open court of what efforts they had previously made to interview Pisoni, presumably to make a record to present to this court. The defendants were interrogated in open court, and asked if they desired to change their pleas to ‘not guilty.’ They responded that they did, and they further stated that they had been denied permission, while in jail, to communicate with their families or with counsel.

On this day before defendants were sentended, Mr. Walsh, an attorney of Port Huron, addressed the court, in part, as follows:

‘I desire to state upon the record that yesterday about 5 o'clock I was interviewed by the brother of the respondent Frank Pisoni, and some others interested in his behalf, and was asked to interview the respondent and advise with him. The claim was made to me that he was a man who is not at all versed in legal matters, with only a poor knowledge of English, and that it was reported that he had pleaded guilty, and that his family felt that some one should advise with him, so that they might be assured that he fully understood all of the circumstances, and that whatever plea he might make would be made freely and voluntarily, in view of the circumstances, including possible punishment.’

This request was refused. Mr. Walsh then requested permission be granted to Pisoni's brother to interview him. This request was refused. The court, after some further proceedings, sentenced the defendants. Before doing so, however, he said, in part, as follows:

‘Well, I do not think it is the duty of the court to accept this request at this time. There could not be anything plainer at all. Both parties understood thoroughly and understood everything that was said to them. Pains were taken with them, and they pleaded guilty here, and I am going to sentence them.

‘I have not only got the statement with reference to the manner in which the beer was obtained from each of the defendants, carefully inquired into that, and also from Mr. Babcock (the officer). He corroborates their statements as to how they obtained the beer. Not only that, but I took pains to have the county chemist analyze the beer, and it shows a 5.3 per cent. alcohol, or more. All that pains has been taken. I am not going to accept the change of plea in this case.’

After defendants had pleaded guilty, it was within the discretion of the trial court whether they should be permitted to withdraw them, if the pleas were entered freely and voluntarily with a full...