After his plea of nolo contendere was accepted to a lesser offense of felonious assault, MCLA 750.82; MSA 28.277, defendant, on Decеmber 15, 1972, was sentenced to two years probation. As a condition of probation, defendant was ordered to pay $500 in costs and fines at the rate of $50 per month. Another condition of probation was that defendant make restitution to the victim of the assault in the amount of $1500 at the rate of $100 per month. This appeal followed.
Defendant contends that his nolo contendere plea must be set aside beсause (1) the trial court erred in interrogating defendant to establish a *441 factual basis for the plea; (2) even if the trial court did not err by doing so, reversal is required because the interrogation did not establish that defendant committed a crime. We disagree.
Defendant’s nolo contendere plea was accepted on November 10, 1972, nearly seven months before GCR 1963, 785.7(3)(d) became effective.
1
At that time it was not error to question an accused to establish a factual basis for his plеa. MCLA 767.37; MSA 28.977. See also
People v Carlisle,
Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for his plea is likewise without merit. The record reveals that the trial court conducted an unusually thorough examination of defendant before accepting his plea. After reviewing the plea trаnscript, we are convinced that defendant’s plea was freеly, understandingly and voluntarily made, and that there was a substantial factual bаsis for it. It was not necessary for defendant’s guilt to be established beyond рeradventure.
People v Winegar,
Defendant next argues that the imposition of restitution рayments to the injured party as a condition of his probation violates due process of law. MCLA 771.3; MSA 28.1133, authorizes the sentencing court to require the payment of restitution and costs as a condition of probation. Furthermore, our courts have repeatedly held that when a defendant is given probation, he is not deprived of
*442
any of his rights without due рrocess, but rather he is given the privilege of avoiding the usual penаlty of his crime by the payment of a sum of money and observance of other conditions.
People v
Good;
Finally, defendant asserts that it is contrary to the public policy of this State to imprison a probationer for failure to pay amounts tоtaling $150 per month where his indigency has prevented such payment. We note at the outset that this claim is not properly before this Court and is premature since defendant has not yet been imprisoned for any alleged failure to make the payments in question. However, our review of the record reveals that on June 1, 1973, a petition for a probation violation hearing was filed in the lower court alleging that defеndant has violated the conditions of his probation in that he has made no payments on his fine and costs or restitution. On August 31, 1973, the lower court adjourned this hearing pending disposition of this appeal. While we affirm the judgment below, we also refer the lower court to consideration of People v Gallagher, supra, wherein we discussed restitution as a condition of probation and thе effect of non-payment due to the inability to pay.
Affirmed.
Notes
The new court rule became effective on June 1, 1973, and thus does not control this case.