People v. Watkins
Decision Date | 28 May 2003 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 120036. |
Citation | 468 Mich. 233,661 N.W.2d 553 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Prentice Devell WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Henry C. Zavislak, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jerrold Schrotenboer, Chief Appellate Attorney, Jackson, MI, for the people.
Donald R. Cook, Detroit, MI, for the defendant-appellant.
We granted leave to appeal in this case to consider whether the trial court erred in questioning the defendant at the degree hearing.1 The defendant pleaded guilty to charges of open murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. § 750.227b. At the plea hearing, the trial court accepted the defendant's plea after the court, pursuant to MCR 6.302(B)(3)2, advised the defendant that he was waiving his trial rights, including the right to remain silent. Pursuant to MCR 6.302(D)(1), the court also established support for the finding that the defendant was guilty of these offenses.
At the subsequent degree hearing held pursuant to M.C.L. § 750.318, the court heard from other witnesses and, without objection, questioned the defendant to determine the appropriate degree of the murder. The court ultimately found defendant guilty of first-degree felony murder. The Court of Appeals concluded that, although the trial court violated defendant's right against compelled self-incrimination, U.S. Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 17, by calling him as a witness at the degree hearing, the error was harmless. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the first-degree felony-murder conviction.3 247 Mich.App. 14, 634 N.W.2d 370 (2001).
Although we too affirm the first-degree felony-murder conviction, we reject the Court of Appeals conclusion that the trial court erred by calling defendant to testify at the degree hearing. A defendant may invoke the privilege against compelled self-incrimination at any point during a plea proceeding, but the privilege is waived if not asserted. By invoking the privilege, the defendant risks losing the benefit of any plea bargain if the judge refuses to accept the plea. Because defendant simply complied with the judge's request to testify and never asserted his right to remain free from compelled self-incrimination, he may not now claim error.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals provides this factual summary:
On November 8, 1999, the court held a degree hearing pursuant to M.C.L. § 750.318.3 At the hearing, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Charlene Stewart, the police officer who responded to the scene following the shooting, and the detective who interviewed defendant. The prosecution also called a forensic pathologist who testified that Allen had scrapes on his forehead and face and died as a result of the gunshot wound. According to the pathologist, the bullet entered Allen's back, traveled down through his body, perforating his aorta, and stopped in his thigh. After the prosecution and defense rested, the court called defendant as a witness, and he was questioned both by the court and the prosecution. Defense counsel did not object to the court calling defendant as a witness or to defendant's testimony. During his testimony, defendant denied robbing Allen and continued to insist that the shooting occurred as the two fought.
A trial court's authority to examine a defendant at a degree hearing following the hearing at which a guilty plea for open murder was accepted is a question of law, which we review de novo. People v. Riddle, 467 Mich. 116, 649 N.W.2d 30 (2002).
Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must question the defendant to ascertain whether there is support for a finding that the defendant is guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty. To facilitate compliance with a defendant's procedural rights, this Court adopted MCR 6.302(D)(1), which provides:
If the defendant pleads guilty, the court, by questioning the defendant, must establish support for a finding that the defendant is guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Allan
...as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” People v. Watkins, 247 Mich.App. 14, 26, 634 N.W.2d 370 (2001), aff'd 468 Mich. 233, 661 N.W.2d 553 (2003). The United States Supreme Court has found error to be structural “only in a very limited class of cases,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 4......
-
People v. Bragg
...Mich. 245, 260, 716 N.W.2d 208 (2006). Yet a privilege may be deemed waived if the defendant fails to assert it. People v. Watkins, 468 Mich. 233, 235, 661 N.W.2d 553 (2003) (regarding a defendant's privilege against forced self-incrimination). And with any privilege, the holder may waive i......
-
People v. Williams
...there is support for a finding that the defendant is guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty." People v. Watkins, 468 Mich. 233, 238, 661 N.W.2d 553 (2003). When questioning the defendant, the circuit court "must establish support for a finding that the defendant is guilty of t......
-
People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo
...of guilt or innocence.” People v. Watkins, 247 Mich.App. 14, 26, 634 N.W.2d 370 (2001), affirmed but criticized on other grounds 468 Mich. 233, 661 N.W.2d 553 (2003). Generally, all other errors are nonstructural. See People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 765, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). When a stru......