People v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 13 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 10,J,10 |
| Citation | 175 N.W.2d 715,383 Mich. 338 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Robert TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellee. anuary Term 1969. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Bruce A. Barton, Pros. Atty., Jackson County, Vincent F. Stapley, Asst. Pros. Atty., Jackson County, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.
L. Russell Heuman, Jackson, for defendant-appellee.
Elmer L. Radka, President, Pros. Attorneys' Association of Michigan, by Samuel J. Torina, Chief of Appellate Procedure Committee, Detroit, amicus curiae, Prosecuting Attorneys' Ass'n of Michigan.
Before the Entire Bench.
THE FACTS
On April 19, 1965, the prosecuting attorney for Jackson county issued an authorization for a warrant to one David C. McGarvey, justice of the peace. It requested that a warrant issue for the arrest of John Robert Taylor for the offense of breaking and entering an auto wash on or about March 8, 1965.
On the same day, April 19, 1965, a criminal complaint was taken, subscribed and sworn to before McGarvey by one Lt. James Myers, in which Myers accused Taylor of committing the burglary.
Also on the same day, a warrant for the arrest of Taylor was issued by the justice of the peace. Upon the warrant, there appears the return of the officer, certifying that John Robert Taylor was taken by virtue of the warrant. The return of the officer is dated April 14, 1965.
Further, on April 19, 1965, Justice of the Peace McGarvey made his return to circuit court on examination, in which he represents to the circuit court that a written complaint was taken in the matter; that the complainant was orally examined by him; that a warrant was duly issued; that the accused was duly arrested by virtue of the warrant; that the accused was brought before him, waived examination, and bound to appear in circuit court on April 20, 1965; that the accused's rights in the premises were duly explained to him by the justice of the peace.
Thereupon, an information was filed in the circuit court for Jackson county, by the prosecuting attorney thereof in the March term, charging John Robert Taylor with the crime of breaking and entering contrary to C.L.1948, § 750.110, P.A.1964, No. 133, (Stat.Ann.1965 Cum.Supp. § 28.305).
On April 20, 1965, defendant Taylor was arraigned in circuit court, upon such information. The transcript shows the following colloquy among the defendant, the court, and the prosecutor:
9:36 o'clock A.M.
'The Court: All right.
'Mr. Fleming: John Robert Taylor?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'Mr. Fleming: You want to step up here to this table. (sic) please?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
(The defendant, John Robert Taylor, then stepped before the Court.)
'Mr. Fleming (Addressing the Court): This is file X3--185, your Honor.
'The Court: All right.
'Mr. Fleming (Addressing the defendant): For the record: Your name is John Robert Taylor?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'Mr. Fleming: Where were you born, John?
'The Defendant: Jackson, Michigan.
'Mr. Fleming: Jackson, Michigan?
'The Defendant: Yes.
'Mr. Fleming: and what is the date of your birth?
'The Defendant: 1/6/36.
'Mr. Fleming: January 6th of 1936?
'The Defendant: Yes; right.
'Mr. Fleming: And that makes you how old a man now?
'The Defendant: 29.
'Mr. Fleming: 29.
'The Defendant: Yes.
'Mr. Fleming: And what has been your address?
'The Defendant: 303 Board Street, Michigan Center.
'Mr. Fleming: What was that again?
'The Defendant: 303 Broad Street, Michigan Center.
'Mr. Fleming: 303 Broad Street, Mighigan Center, Michigan?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'Mr. Fleming: Who do you live there with?
'The Defendant: My sister and her husband.
'Mr. Fleming: Do you have an attorney here this morning, John?
'The Defendant: No, I don't.
'The Court: You understand that you ate entitled to an attorney of your own choice and if you are unable to furnish one that the State will furnish you one?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: You understand that?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: And also that you are entitled to a jury trial if you so desire?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: You understand that?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: You understand that you are charged with breaking and entering Leo's Auto Wash?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: You understand that?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: How do you wish to plead?
'The defendant: I wish to stand mute.
'The Court (Addressing the Clerk): All right, Mr. Clerk, let the record show that the defendant waives reading of the information, stands mute, and a plea of not guilty is entered by order of the Court, and he is remanded t the custody of the sheriff to await trial. Bond, $1,000.00.
'That's all.
'I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is true nad correct to the best of my knowledge information and belief.
'(signed) John Simpson,
Circuit Judge.'
Three days later, on April 23, 1965, the defendant again appeared in circuit court. Once more, the prosecuting attorney was present. In addition, Stephen Pearse, chief probation officer of Jackson county, was also present in court. The proceedings were as follows:
'Mr. Eleming: John Robert Taylor.
(The defendant walked up to the counsel table in front of the bench.)
'Mr. Fleming: This, your Honor, is file X3--185.
'Mr. Taylor, what occurred, you requested through my office to be brought up here today to change your plea from that previously entered of not guilty to that of guilty to this charge.
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: You understand that this charges that on or about March 8, 1965, you did break and enter the building known as Leo's Auto Wash.
'You understand that?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: You know that is a felony?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: You have heard me tell the others. I was not present at your arraignment, but I assume you were told you had a right to a trial by jury and, also, if you had no money with which to hire an attorney, that upon request from you that the Court might appoint an attorney for you.
'Were you told that?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: Do you wish an attorney appointed?
'The Defendant: No, sir.
'The Court: And did you on or about March 8, 1965, break into Leo's Auto Wash?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: Why did you break in?
'The Defendant: To obtain whatever money might be found inside.
'The Court: In other words, if there was money in the building, you intended to steal it, is that correct?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: Pardon?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: Have any promises been made to you to get you to plead guilty?
'The Defendant: No, sir.
'The Court: Have any threats been made against you?
'The Defendant: No.
'The Court: Are you entering this plea freely and voluntarily?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: Are you on probation or parole at present?
'The Defendant: No, sir, I am not.
'The Court: Very well. The Court will accept your plea of guilty.
'You are not able to make bond?
'The Defendant: Well, my folks are working on it right now. They are in the process of it.
'The Court: The reason I asked you is that you probably would be sentenced sooner if I did not fix a definite date for sentence. But if you think there is a possibility of your folks making bond for you, I will fix your date of sentence for May 14, 1965, at nine a.m.
'The Defendant: Thank you.
'The Court: And your bond is--
'The Defendant (interrupting): I believe it was the same as the other one, your Honor, two thousand.
'The Court: Two thousand dollars?
'All right. We will fix your bond at two thousand dollars, and in default thereof you are remanded to the custody of the sheriff.
'This matter will be referred to the probation * * *.'
On May 14, 1965, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 29 months minimum to ten years maximum.
On November 17, 1965, defendant Taylor filed in circuit court his affidavit of indigency, and a motion for appointment of appellate counsel. Hearing on the indigency petition was waived by the prosecutor, and on January 11, 1966, L. Russell Heuman was appointed appellate counsel.
On the same day, January 11, 1966, defendant Taylor acting In propria persona, filed in circuit court an application for leave to file a delayed petition to set aside conviction and sentence and grant a new trial; an affidavit of indigency and facts of the case; a petition to withdraw plea of guilty, set aise conviction and grant new trial; a brief in support thereof; and a petition to be admitted to bail.
On February 1, 1966, the prosecuting attorney filed an answer to the motion for new trial. On March 18, 1966, the motion was argued orally, and taken under advisement. On May 24, 1966, the circuit judge filed his opinion and order denying the motion for new trial.
While no order appears in the record, we must assume that the circuit judge granted the application for leave to file delayed petition for new trial. The delayed petition was in fact filed, answered on its merits and ruled upon by the trial court.
In his January 11, 1966, petitions and in the affidavit filed therewith, defendant Taylor makes the following allegations:
1. That he was arrested without a warrant in his mother's public restaurant, forced to march to the curb and stretch his hands and arms across the top of a car while being searched and subsequently taken to jail.
2. That he was not told by the arresting officers that he was charged with any crime.
3. That he was not allowed to give his mother a message prior to his arrest.
4. That he was taken to the Jackson County Jail.
5. That he was interrogated 'relentlessly' by City Police officers and members of the Sheriff's Department.
6. That when one group of officers would leave, another group would continue the 'incessant' interrogation.
7. That he was not told by the officers that he had a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor
...People v. Goldman, 245 Mich. 578, 223 N.W. 124 (1929); People v. Williams, 225 Mich. 133, 195 N.W. 818 (1923); People v. Taylor, 383 Mich. 338, 175 N.W.2d 715 (1970); 2 People v. Kobrzycki, 242 Mich. 44, 217 N.W. 782 (1928). 3 See also People v. Bumpus, 355 Mich. 374, 95 N.W.2d 854 (1959) w......
-
Vickery v. State of South Carolina
...of rights waived confuses "desirability with indispensability." Morgan v. State, supra, 287 A.2d at 598. Cf. People v. Taylor, 383 Mich. 338, 175 N.W.2d 715 (1970). Petitioner's attempt to constitutionally impose on the state courts the identical guilty plea procedure required of the federa......
-
People v. Mauch
...367, 371, 240 N.W.2d 704, n. 3 (1976), for the history of GCR 1963, 785, and preceding Court Rule No. 35A.4 In People v. Taylor, 383 Mich. 338, 357, 175 N.W.2d 715, 723 (1970), the lead opinion, written by Chief Justice Brennan, speaking of McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. ......
-
People v. Williams
...these facts on the record. We have discussed Stearns above, I(B). The next and most recent decision in this area is People v. Taylor, 383 Mich. 338, 175 N.W.2d 715 (1970) outside of People v. Ferguson Defendant alleged in seeking to invalidate his plea of guilty that (1) he was not advised ......