Dеfendant and his codefendant were convicted in a bench trial of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. Defendant was sentenced to a term of from 5 to 15 years in prison. He appeals as of right.
I
Defendant’s appeal centеrs on the fact that his trial counsel did not appear at sentencing. Rather, counsel for his codefendant represented both men *609 at the sentencing proceeding. On appeal, defendant asserts that this procedure violated his constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel.
The cоnstitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel, US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20, apply to sentencing рroceedings.
People v Dye,
Multiple representation of two defendants by one attorney can lead to conflicts of interest great enough to deprive one or both of the defendants оf effective assistance of counsel.
Holloway v Arkansas,
In order to help obviate potential claims of ineffective assistanсe of counsel, Michigan provides by court rule, GCR 1963, 785.4(4), that whenever two or more defendants are represented by the same lawyer at the same proceeding, the court shall inquire into any potential conflicts. 1 The rule *610 rеquires that joint representation not take place unless, on the record, counsel states that no conflict of interest will arise and the reasons for his belief, the defendants consent to the joint representаtion, and the court finds that in all probability a conflict will not arise and states its reasons for its belief. The court rulе was not followed in this case. Defendant did state on the record, however, that he had no objection to the joint representation.
Although GCR 1963, 785.4(4) is written in mandatory terms and, therefore, is to be followed by trial courts, a violation of its guidelines does not perfect a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The cоnstitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel do not require courts to initiate inquiries into the propriety of multiple representation unless the court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists.
Cuyler, supra,
We have carefully scrutinized the transcript of defendant’s sentencing proceeding. Thе record reveals effective representation of defendant by his counsel at sentencing. No actual conflict of interest appears to have existed. In view of counsel’s representation, the аpparent lack of an actual conflict of interest, and defendant’s on-the-record consent tо substitution of counsel, we affirm defendant’s sentence.
II
Defendant’s trial counsel was provided by the County of Wayne. Our review of the file in this case reveals that although defendant’s trial counsel was not present at sentenсing, he included defendant’s sentencing proceeding in his sworn "description of services rendered” and chargеd the county for this service. Unless counsel chooses to seek a hearing in Detroit Recorder’s Court on the propriety of this charge, he is herewith ordered to remit to the County of Wayne the fee he received in connection with defendant’s sentencing proceeding.
Affirmed.
Notes
GCR 1963, 785.4(4) provides:
"Whenever two or more defendants who have been jointly charged or whose cases have been consolidated are represented by the same lawyer, the court shall inquire into any potential conflict which might jeopardize the right of each defendаnt to the fidelity of his or her *610 lawyer. The same lawyer may not represent two or more defendants unless
"(á) the lawyеr proposing to represent two or more defendants states, on the record before trial, that joint representation will in all probability not cause a conflict of interest and states the reasons for the conclusion; and
"(b) the defendants state, on the record, after the court’s inquiry and the lawyer’s statement, that it is their dеsire to proceed with the same lawyer; and
"(c) the court finds, on the record, that joint representatiоn will in all probability not cause a conflict of interest and states the reasons for the finding.
"If an unanticipated conflict occurs during trial, a lawyer who is representing two or more defendants shall immediately inform the cоurt; if the court agrees that a conflict has arisen, it shall appoint an additional lawyer or lawyers or afford one or more of the defendants the opportunity to retain separate counsel, as the case may require. The court may, on its own motion, inquire into any potential conflict which becomes apparent during trial, and the court may take such action as the interests of justice require.”