People v. Walls
| Decision Date | 11 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 685,685,1 |
| Citation | 142 N.W.2d 38,3 Mich.App. 279 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff, v. Willie WALLS, Defendant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Sanford Rosenthal, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and WATTS, JJ.
On May 5, 1964 examination was held in recorder's court on a complaint filed and issued on April 27, 1964 charging the defendant with assault with intent to rape a female under the age of sixteen. At the examination, defendant was represented by counsel, at the conclusion of which defendant was held for trial and bond was set.
On June 3, 1964 defendant was arraigned on the information. Defendant stood mute, and the court entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, defendant, represented by a court-appointed attorney, appeared for trial on June 29, 1964. Defendant, through his court-appointed attorney, advised the court that he wished to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of assault with intent to rape and enter a plea of guilty to a charge of gross indecency between a male and female pursuant to C.L.S. 1961, § 750.338b (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.570 (2)). After the required examination to determine if the plea of guilt was freely and voluntarily rendered by defendant, the court accepted the plea as offered and ordered the case referred to the probation department and psychiatric clinic for investigation and report.
Defendant, in open court on July 13, 1964, was sentenced to the State Prison of Southern Michigan for a term of not less than 2 1/2 and not more than 5 years.
Defendant, through his present attorney appointed to process the appeal, timely filed his claim of appeal asking this Court to review the conviction in the trial court. This cause was remanded to the trial court for filing of a delayed motion for a new trial. Defendant then filed a delayed motion for a withdrawal of the plea of guilty, vacating of the conviction and sentence, and for a new trial. Defendant's motion was predicated upon an alleged promise by his court-appointed trial attorney that if defendant pleaded guilty to gross indecency the attorney would see to it that the defendant only 'got probation.' The alleged promise by his attorney was supported by affidavits from defendant, his wife, and from two inmates of the State Prison of Southern Michigan who claimed they were present in the detention area of recorder's court along with the defendant and heard the assurance of the attorney. The motion was denied by the trial court. The case is now before us for a review of the denial.
Defendant claims that the alleged promise of probation by his trial attorney was acquiesced to or agreed to by the assistant prosecuting attorney. It is therefore maintained by the defendant that since the promise was not kept, he should be allowed to withdraw the plea of guilty and be granted a new trial.
It is a settled proposition of law in this State that the courts will permit the withdrawal of a plea of guilty when it is established by evidence that a plea of guilty was induced by an unfulfilled promise of leniency made by a judge or a prosecutor. People ex rel. Valle v. Bannan (1961), 364 Mich. 471, 110 N.W.2d 673.
In the instant case, however, the record is totally void of proofs of any bargain entered into by the assistant prosecutor. The affidavit of defendant labeled 'Exhibit A' only states that defendant's trial attorney 'had talked it over with someone.' More proofs than provided by this record must be shown to convince us that such an agreement was in fact entered into by one of our public officials. People ex rel. Valle v. Bannan, supra.
It is also contended by defendant that a promise of leniency or probation by his attorney if he pleaded guilty to gross indecency would be sufficient to vitiate the plea as involuntary when he was in fact sentenced to a 2 1/2 to 5 year term as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Byrd
...the plea of guilty was not made Prior to sentencing, but rather the relief was sought almost 2 months thereafter. See People v. Walls (1966), 3 Mich.App. 279, 142 N.W.2d 38. We will not allow the judicial process to be abused merely because the defendant is dissatisfied with the sentence As......
-
People v. Taylor
...People v. Leach (1966), 2 Mich.App. 713, 141 N.W.2d 377; People v. Wilkins (1966), 3 Mich.App. 56, 141 N.W.2d 664; People v. Walls (1966), 3 Mich.App. 279, 142 N.W.2d 38; People v. Hoerle (1966), 3 Mich.App. 693, 143 N.W.2d 593; People v. Shaffer (1966), 4 Mich.App. 192, 144 N.W.2d 680; Peo......
-
People v. Sledge
...it is established that the plea was induced by an unfulfilled promise of leniency made by a prosecutor or judge. People v. Walls, 3 Mich.App. 279, 282, 142 N.W.2d 38 (1966). However, this Court also has held that bad advice of defense counsel alone generally is not enough to warrant the wit......
-
People v. Eaton
...addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court, People v. Vasquez, 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538 (1942); People v. Walls, 3 Mich.App. 279, 142 N.W.2d 38 (1966), and the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion resulting in a mi......