People v. Reid

• Decision Date: 15 January 1985
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 67451,23,Nos. 22,68939,s. 22
• Citation: 362 N.W.2d 655,420 Mich. 326
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen REID, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant. Calendar
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 655

362 N.W.2d 655

420 Mich. 326

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen REID, Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 67451, 68939.

Calendar Nos. 22, 23.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued May 5, 1983.

Decided Dec. 28, 1984.

Released for Publication Jan. 15, 1985.

L. Brooks Patterson, Pros. Atty., Oakland County,Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty. by Thomas S. Richards, Asst. Pros. Atty., Pontiac, for the People.

Vincent D. Giovanni, Birmingham, for Allen Reid.

Gerald M. Lorence, Detroit, State Appellate Defender Office by Sheila N. Robertson, Assistant Defender, Bill Moy, Research Assistance, Detroit, for Gregory Jordan.

LEVIN, Justice.

The question presented in these consolidated cases is whether a defendant in a criminal case may, after a conditional plea of guilty, appeal a decision denying a motion to suppress evidence.

We hold that he may do so where, as here, the defendant could not be prosecuted if his claim that a constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated is sustained and the defendant, the prosecutor, and the judge have agreed to the conditional plea.

I

Gregory Jordan and Allen Reid were charged with kidnapping, ¹ armed robbery, ² and criminal sexual conduct. ³ During the investigation, evidence was obtained on the basis of a warrant sworn to by Philip A. Denomme, Youth Officer for the Bloomfield Township Police Department. Denomme stated in the affidavit that a confidential informant, who had been reliable in the past, implicated Jordan, Reid, and David Hardy ⁴ in the abduction and rape under investigation.

Relying on Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), and alleging that the warrants were based on an affidavit that was either false or made in reckless disregard of the truth, the defendants joined in a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained on the basis of the warrant. A hearing was held at which Denomme and two other police officers testified that they had been present when the informant provided the information included in Denomme's affidavit. Denomme also testified that he had later paid the informant $100 for the information supplied at the meeting. A fourth officer testified regarding the informant's statement that he had information regarding the incident. The defense called the informant, who testified that, although he had met with the officers and told them he knew the defendants, he had denied any knowledge of the incident. The judge denied the motion to suppress, and defendants subsequently pled guilty to reduced charges.

Under the terms of their pleas, all three defendants reserved the right to appeal the denial of their motion to suppress. After sentencing, defendants appealed.

In Jordan, the Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction in an unpublished memorandum opinion. The Court of Appeals held that a conditional guilty plea is valid, and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

In Reid, a different panel of the Court of Appeals ruled that a conditional guilty plea is invalid and said that a defendant may not plead guilty while reserving the right to appeal and then on appeal challenge the validity of a search warrant. ⁵ Reid's plea was set aside and the cause was remanded either for the taking of an unconditional plea of guilty or for trial. Justice Cavanagh, then a Judge of the Court of Appeals, writing in dissent, would have sustained the validity of the conditional guilty plea.

II

A defendant's right to appeal a criminal conviction is secured by the Michigan Constitution. ⁶ A defendant may voluntarily and knowingly waive that right. ⁷

Jordan and Reid argue that the judge did not have the authority to accept a conditional plea and thus that they pled guilty without an adequate understanding of the value of commitments made to them in exchange for their pleas. This misapprehension, the defendants argue, rendered their pleas involuntary and requires that the pleas be set aside and their convictions reversed.

We disagree. We hold that a defendant may appeal from a denial of a Fourth Amendment or Const.1963, art. 1, Sec. 11 search and seizure claim where, as here, the defendant could not be prosecuted if his claim that a constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated is sustained and the defendant, the prosecutor, and the judge have agreed to the conditional plea.

A

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a guilty plea does not insulate all claims from review. In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974), the court held that a defendant had a right, although he had pled guilty, to claim on appeal that the trial court was without jurisdiction. Federal courts have also held that a guilty plea does not waive a claim on appeal that the conviction is violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause, ⁸ that the statute pursuant to which the defendant was charged is unconstitutional, ⁹ or that the indictment or information does not state an offense. ¹⁰

Some federal courts allow a conditional guilty plea whenever a substantial constitutional claim is involved. ¹¹ Although the United States Supreme Court has not squarely considered the validity of a conditional guilty plea, it has, in dictum, spoken with apparent approval of a New York statute allowing a conditional plea. ¹²

It is well established in this state that a defendant may appeal from a conviction on a plea of guilty claiming that the procedure for taking a plea of guilty prescribed by GCR 1963, 785.7 was not followed, that he was not provided with the opportunity to obtain counsel, or that the plea was not an understanding and voluntary plea or was otherwise obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.

In addressing the question whether a defendant may appeal from a plea-based conviction, this Court has not adhered to a strict "jurisdictional/non-jurisdictional" distinction. ¹³ In People v. Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich. 424, 444, 240 N.W.2d 729 (1976), this Court said that notwithstanding a plea of guilty, a defendant may raise "the defense of double jeopardy, those grounded in the due process clause, those relating to insufficient evidence to bind over at preliminary examination, and failure to suppress illegally obtained evidence without which the people could not proceed ". (Emphasis supplied.)

In People v. White, 411 Mich. 366, 387, 308 N.W.2d 128 (1981), this Court extended the rationale of Johnson to include the claim of entrapment, stating that "[a] claim of entrapment does not involve an assessment of guilt or innocence, but rather expresses a policy that there should be no prosecution at all. In this respect, it is like a jurisdictional defect which is not waived by a plea of guilty".

The people acknowledge that they could not have proceeded with this prosecution without the evidence that Jordan and Reid sought to suppress.

B

It has been asserted that allowing a defendant to plead guilty and thereafter to appeal a non-jurisdictional issue could result in further overcrowding of the appellate courts. The state, however, has no legitimate interest in discouraging a defendant from appealing an adverse ruling in order to reduce the appellate caseload. ¹⁴ The issues involved in an appeal may not be presumed to be frivolous.

The procedure for interlocutory review of a defendant's pretrial motion does not provide an adequate opportunity for appellate review of trial court rulings. Such review is granted only infrequently, not as a matter of course. In any event, if interlocutory review is granted, it presents no less a strain on appellate resources than appeal following a plea of guilty or trial.

A defendant may have a legitimate legal defense notwithstanding his factual guilt. As Justice Cavanagh stated in dissent in Reid, "[a] qualified plea does not cause the courts to consider claims to which a defendant 'was not entitled'. It merely allows a defendant to say, 'Yes, I did the act, but I contest the state's ability to present its case against me.' There may be a number of reasons why a defendant would feel he had a legitimate legal defense to the state's prosecution, but that it would be futile or impossible for the defendant to say that he did not do the act with which he was charged." 113 Mich.App. 262, 269, 317 N.W.2d 589 (1982).

It is argued that permitting an appeal from a guilty plea would deprive the plea of finality, create delay, and interfere with the deterrent effect of punishment. In cases where the defendant chooses to go to trial in order to preserve his right of appeal, however, not only is finality not achieved, but a successful appeal may result in two trials and two appeals. See People v. Reid, supra, 113 Mich.App. p. 270, 317 N.W.2d 589 (Cavanagh, J., dissenting ).

III

Jordan argues that the evidence obtained on the basis of the search warrant should be suppressed pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, supra. ¹⁵ In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that

"where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's false material set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit."

A hearing was held after the...