*1 305 1971] v. Johnson to the result due here under has reasoned our I stand, as same vote presently decisions affirm. E. concurred J., T. Brennan, Black,
PEOPLE v. JOHNSON Opinion of the Court Trial—Delayed New 1. Motion for New Trial—Time Limit. Michigan Supreme The Court does look upon not with favor long-delayed trial, although motion for a new there is no final by existing time limitation rule. Guilty—Coerced 2. Criminal Law—Plea Plea—Promises Leniency—Vacating Plea. guilty by Plea of who was sentenced for 20 40 years vacated, must be if in his contained unsupported affidavit are true that his was coerced that after his police arrest he was beaten official until passed out, and then given warned he would be more of plead same he did guilty, his plea was induced promised that he was attorney, prosecu- the assistant tor, police and a pled guilty officer that if he he would receive a maximum years of 10 (MCLA 768.35; sentence Court Rule No [1945]). 35A Guilty—Remand Evidentiary 3. Criminal Law—Plea for Hear- ing—New Trial—Discretion—Coerced Plea—Induced Plea— Vacating Plea—Appeal and Error. Case should be evidentiary remanded for hearing to deter- mine if the “freely, understandingly defendant’s [3] [1] [2, 4, [6-8] [9] 4 2d, 58 Am Am Am Jur Criminal 21 Am Jur Jur Jur Am Jur References 2d, 2d, 2d, Appeal Law 484 2d, Appeal New 2d, Criminal Law § Criminal Law Trial and Error and Error et §§ seq. Points 187-191. §§ § § §§.397, 498, 499; 21 in Headnotes 484 529, 530. et seq. Am Jur influence, voluntarily made, compulsion undue without leniency” promise where there is duress, no and without proceedings on court record the trial *2 Michigan Supreme guilty plea his as the set aside to determining whether or not the trial court has no basis for denying motion for the defendant’s abused its discretion guilty plea unlawfully trial; if the was a new induced, must and a new trial or then it be vacated coerced granted. Plea—Attorney Guilty—Voluntary
4. Criminal Law—Plea of and Client—Confession—Evidence. plea his of by counsel time of Defendant was advised at the therefore, argument plea guilty and, his his was not vol- allegedly improperly untary an exacted because lie then believed police concerning by him the the crime statement made as, as fail a entered would be must admissible evidence a of is vol-
under such with the advice counsel circumstances untary act. Guilty—Motion
5. Criminal to Vacate Plea—Con- Law—Plea of Witnesses—Presumption stitutional Law—Confrontation of Innocence—Nature of Offense—Self-Incrimination—Rec- Plea—Appeal ord of and Error. defendant determine, remand, Trial court whether should any prior to the properly was informed on record at time acceptance plea proceeding tran- guilty plea where of his judge in- trial script improperly as to silent whether right to confront wit- formed of his defendant constitutional offense, nesses, innocence, presumption his the nature of right against self-incrimination,
his and whether the basis for the defendant’s established factual possible as, proper it is that the instructions evi- proceedings; if the place stage an took at earlier dentiary hearing does not disclose that substantially rights, his motion informed each then his granted. guilty must vacate his be Law—Sentencing—Presence 6. Criminal of Counsel—Constitu- Law. tional Constitution, ap- The Sixth Amendment the United States Amendment, plicable through re- states the Fourteenth of a quires present at one convicted counsel to be the time 14). crime is (US Const, sentenced Ams v. Law—Sentencing—Critical Stage op Proceedings— Criminal 7. Waiver—Representation Counsel. stage in Sentencing is a critical the criminal proceedings and intelligent represented an waiver the defendant absent must be by counsel. Law—Sentencing—Assistance op Counsel—Conplict
8. Criminal op Interest. represented should have been Defendant own counsel at attorney sentencing by an rather than as codefendant single attorney represents a situation which two or more easily gives rise to a conflict of defendants interest. Appeal Law—Sentencing—Allocution. and Error—Criminal assignment Defendant’s of error due to the fact that he was provided opportunity speak an at the time he sentenced was issue not raised either the trial court Michigan Appeals and, therefore, Court of will con- not be by Michigan Supreme sidered Court. *3 Dissenting Opinion and T. E. JJ. Brennan, Black por op New New Trial—Motion Trial—Discretion—Plea 10. Guilty—Appeal and Error. A new trial addresses to the discretion the for itself of presumed trial and abuse discretion is not to be of appellate an court. op Guilty—Evidentiary Hearing—New 11. Criminal Law—Plea Trial. ought evidentiary hearing Trial court to conduct an to determine allegations the truth the made where a motion new of for integrity proceedings, trial attacks the at which a of accepted, motion, in the and the of that, true, supported would vitiate the are such affidavit plea. voluntariness of por Trial—Discretion—Evidentiary 12. New Trial—Motion New Hearing. always judges take It trial has been within discretion of hearing trial; testimony upon a motion new such for of evidentiary hearing invention, inno- nor an not a new post-conviction vation in the area remedies. of 386 Opinion op the Court Appeal Propria Supple- Error—In 13. and Persona—Remand Record. ment appellant present Normally, it is the burden Michigan Supreme pertinent portions Court all the record appeal ap- propria persona below but where the is in and the pellant things already is unschooled in such has far, purpose come so the case should be remanded the sole for supplementing appendix with the a ver- addition transcript judge. proceedings batim before from Appeal Court of Division Hol- Appeals, 1, brook, J., P. and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ., for leave from Re- denying application appeal corder’s Court of Geraldine Detroit, Ford, Bledsoe J. 7, (No. Submitted 1971. Term May April 1971, Docket No. 52,330.) Decided December
Roger convicted, guil- ty, murder. second-degree Application for leave for delayed appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Defendant appeals. Remanded for evidentiary hearing.
Frank Kelley, A. Attorney General, Robert Derengoski, Solicitor William L. Cahalan, General, Prosecuting Dominick Attorney, R. Carnovale, Angelo Pen- Chief, Appellate A. Department, tolino, Prosecuting Assistant Attorney, the peo- ple. propria persona.
Roger Johnson,
*4
J. This
of
is one
a quartette of cases
Williams,
with
dealing
pleas.1
guilty
1
People
This
is
quartette
case
one of the
us
v.
Williams
Ruf
People
(1971),
277,
21, People
v. Jaworski
(1972), 387 Mich
People
v. Butler (1972),
the particularly Williams relates more Johnson v. Opinion the Court this issues before basic two presents
This case was the defendant’s 1. Whether Court: made; 2. voluntarily and understandingly, freely, informed of adequately defendant was the Whether court. the trial rights by his constitutional was also raised: Whether question A third at denied counsel was prejudicially time of his sentencing. one and Clifton Eoger
The defendant Johnson 10, 1962, on charged August were Downing death of Eugene murder first-degree shooting not pled guilty, Oliver. The defendant originally that plea on November withdrew 26, 1962, but then to the included offense of second- pled murder. He was term prison sentenced degree of not less than 20 or more than years. years, filed a de- 8, 1967, On September motion for of his layed aside setting trial. This was and for a new denied by on 1968. An January 30, applica- trial court tion for was denied the Court of delayed appeal 1968. This Appeals August 30, Court granted requirement the trial ascertain the factual basis of alleged pleading is guilty, especially crime to which the defendant light (1959), in with whether the v. Barrows Mich 267. Jaworski deals understandingly made, specifically more adequately rights with whether the defendant was advised of his so guilty plea constitutionally that his waived them. Jaworski also Boykin general implications considers the Alabama (89 274). pro-Boykin US 238 23 L 2d Butler is a S Ct Ed point compliance requires is case. Its main defendant of whether ad- substantial vising vising substantially rights substantially all of his ad- rights. defendant of all his Johnson’s main consideration is voluntarily guilty plea made, specifically whether more leniency. whether it was made without duress or It also Boykin challenge. Procedurally, Johnson’s main deals with the point since guilty plea matter, record also considers how and when such review should be handled. sub- These cases also law on conclude that the state of the ject general understanding be of the law leaves much to setting Supreme up desired. to consider The Court is committee rules to clarifying whole matter and and definitive recommend strictly be adoption. followed after *5 386 Mich Opinion op the Court ap- delayed application for leave to the defendant’s peal on June
I.
waited five
case,
the instant
years
guilty plea
attempting
his
set
before
to have
by
limitation
final time
aside. While there
no
upon
existing
a
we do not look with favor
rule,
long-delayed
Bar-
for a new trial.
v.
(1959),
recognize
rows
358 Mich
267, 272. We
problems
people
prosecuting
of the
nearly
ago.
for an offense committed
a decade
Appeals such as this one
the need for a
illustrate
right hearings
court rule which would allow of
as
on the merits motion in the trial court to vacate
only
conviction
and to withdraw
period,
example
a fixed reasonable
for'
the first
days
sentencing.
following
the date of
Such a
ample opportunity
rule would afford defendants
appeal alleged deprivation
of their constitutional
rights,
eliminating long-de-
while
same
at the
time
layed
hearing
motions for new trials. Thereafter
only
good
would
be on
cause
both on the
shown,
delay.
merits and reason for
As noted in
Williams
II. major The defendant’s contention is freely, understandingly, was not and volun- Opinion op the Court unsupported alleges tarily affidavit made. He arrest that after his was coerced in that his police passed out, official until he beaten given he would more of the and then warned be *6 plead guilty. fur- if did not The defendant same he alleges plea in his was induced that he ther that by prose- promised attorney, assistant was his the police pled guilty that if he he and a officer cutor, years in maximum of ten would receive a sentence allegations obviously prison. were a None of these guilty plea at time of record the the was matter received. (Stat 28.1058) § §
MCLA 768.35 Ann 1954 Rev acceptance pleas guilty and re- deals with the of ** * * “ satisfy quires the trial court to itself that plea freely, knowledge made full said was with of the of nature the and accusation, without undue influ- ence.” * * * “ (1945) requires Rule No 35A that plea freely, understandingly voluntarily the was and compulsion without undue made, influence, duress, leniency.” and without of A review of the law in this area illustrates if the con- plea tained in the defendant’s affidavit are his true, guilty of must be vacated.2 People 2 In (1878), Edwards v. 760, 39 Mich plea the defendant’s charge larceny on a was set aside this Court. The in Edwards investigate court failed to the defendant’s case plea given freely to ascertain that his was and in without undue Campbell writing court, fluence. for the Chief Justice stated: only requires “This judge statute not the carefully to examine case, into the facts of require the which can no less than a search depositions they into the if have been returned or evidence similar they taken, have not compels been but also him to examine the prisoner concerning himself the which circumstances induced him to plead guilty.” “ * * * involved, 1875, 99, stated, The statute PA No it shall * * * duty judge be the of such court to become satisfied * * * plea freely, knowledge said was made full with accusation, nature and without undue influence.” Henning People (1879), in The defendant v. 40 Mich originally charged subsequently pled guilty with murder and manslaughter. plea aside, crime of In his motion to have his set 386 Opinion op the Court coerced alleged pleas This Court dealt Coates in case of v. (1953), Coates Mich 56. The defendant pled guilty crimes in 1929. rape armed robbery Sub- he moved those sequently pleas to have vacated in that he had been threatened with alleging death if he did officials not The by police plead guilty. defendant’s contentions were supported only his alleged judge any that the investigation did make into the satisfy freely, case to knowledge himself that was made with full accusation, of the and without undue influence. This Court investigation asked for a return from cerning his the trial as to con- plea. judge’s The trial return stated that he had re- peated interviews with the counsel friends, had made inquiry matter, full into the and was satisfied that properly received. This Court then affirmed the conviction. This robbery Court vacated a conviction for bank Merhige the case of defendant, Mich 601. The driver, alleged a taxi had that he been forced under threat of death proceeded to drive ear for a who bank, number of men to rob a killing a process. alleged customer The defendant that at no *7 counsel, time did he have the because he feared that a pled guilty assistance of and that he great people present crowd of at the time might eventually of his arrest take the law into their own hands. The defendant also contended did charges that he not understand the against him. remanding jury In trial, for a this Court concluded that the de- voluntarily plea fendant did guilty not enter his of with full knowl- edge consequences plea. of the of such a The Court stated further that: “ plea entirely voluntary by competent ‘The should be one know consequences, by fear, the misapprehension, and should be induced not ” persuasion, promises, inadvertence, ignorance.’ 601, 212 Mich 612. People In v. Vester (1944), 409, 309 attempted Mich plea guilty his rape vacate of being to the crime of after sentenced imprisonment. alleged life The defendant that he had not been represented by counsel and did not know the elements the crime charged. with which was affirming he In conviction, this Court presumption made a in favor of the trial court: “We proper investigation must assume that a court made case; of the plea nature of the and that was with' full made knowledge of the nature of the in- accusation and without undue required by Comp. fluence as is 1929, (Stat Ann Laws § 28.1058).” 409, 309 Mich 412. § Winegar In (1968), 380 Mich this Court affirmed guilty plea conviction of the defendant for assault with intent Though to murder. alleged defendant that affidavit plea had through been obtained threats, inducement and coercive this Court concluded proceedings that the record of the lower court indicated otherwise. v. Johnson op Opinion the Court by the testi- affidavit, contradicted and were
own
police
mony
involved. While this
of the
officials
in Coates,
affirmed the defendant’s convictions
allegation
noted
if his
was true,
we
that
it
also
setting
plea
grounds
guilty:
aside
would be
holding
have no hesitation
such
“We
any
judge
came to the attention of
circuit
threats
plea
accepted.
guilty would not be
de-
Moreover,
questions propounded by Judge
answers to
fendant’s
Black in
contradicts the
open
plea
court
was
after his
made
opinion
claim now
In our
makes.
voluntarily
was
made and
knowledge
consequences.”
with
of the
This Court was concerned with a allegedly obtained in the case of In inducement Re In that Valle case the pled guilty charge breaking defendant entering nighttime court-appointed in the after his open prosecutor counsel stated in court that oppose probation jail would not with a six months’ subsequently term. The sentenced to years prison. holding 5 to such unlawfully voluntary, induced and not Court stated: require prom-
“In this situation we do that the leniency beyond ise of ever, any be established doubt what- beyond any or even reasonable doubt in the acquainted mind of one learned in the law and judicial requirement administration. The is far less stringent: prose- If the evidence establishes that fairly cutor or the has made which statement *8 interpreted by (in the our case of for- eign only eighth-grade extraction and with an edu- presumably time) cation, in court a for the first is leniency, and the is assurance unfulfilled, plea may proceed be withdrawn and case trial.” 364 Mich 477, 471, 478.
314 305 386 Mich Opinion op the Court Supreme dealt has also Court The United States pleas guilty. problem induced with the (82 (1962), 487 368 US v. United States Machibroda pled 473) had L Ed 2d 510, S Ct 7 robbery charges in 1956. He bank two years imprisonment for 25 on one was sentenced years charge the sentences other, and for consecutively. the defendant moved In 1959 to run grounds pleas guilty vacated on the to have his by promises they and threats. had been obtained accompanying stated affidavit of the defendant An Attorney promised him had the United States sentence of receive a maximum total that he would years pled guilty. also al if The defendant he leged Attorney told him that United that the States be added to his bank robberies would two unsolved plead guilty. if did not difficulties vacating the defendant’s Jn Supreme stated: United States if that, “There can be no doubt petitioner’s motion and affidavit are contained A vacated. true, he is entitled to have his sentence promises guilty plea, which if induced or threats voluntary deprive act, it of the character of is open upon A void. conviction based such a is 493. to collateral attack.” 368 US trial In the instant there is no record case, proceedings defendant’s motion to set court on the guilty plea. no basis deter aside the We have for mining its or not the court abused dis whether denying cretion the defendant’s new trial. case for Therefore we must remand this evidentiary hearing3 guide Valle as * * # “ determine the defendant’s evidentiary hearing supported Such remand for our de People 288; (1971), cision v. Jones v. Daniels Mich Henning (1966), 397; App 395, 40 Mich *9 v. Johnson Opinion op the Coukt voluntarily
freely, understanding^ with- made, compulsion and with- duress, influence, undue out leniency.” If out plea unlawfully then it must induced, coerced or granted. trial and a new be vacated III. alleges plea his was not also that
The defendant allegedly voluntary im- believed because he then properly him to the made exacted statement police concerning admissible as the crime would be considering or not the whether evidence. Without relying upon admissible, would have been statement (90 Richardson S Ct McMann v. US argument 763) L 25 Ed 2d we dismiss McMann, the United Su- the defendant. preme States plea a affirmed the conviction of alleged pled guilty a due who that he to defendant prior The Court stated coerced confession. with the ad- entered under such circumstances voluntary vice of act. The defendant counsel is time in the case was counsel at the instant advised supra, light McMann, his and therefore argument his this issue must fail.
IV. argues judge The defendant that the erred right failing inform him of to his constitutional presumption in- to and of witnesses, confront transcript proceedings nocence. The (See Transcript any silent as such instructions. to Proceedings Appendix attached as I of this Plea alleges opinion.) further The defendant that the error failure in- trial court committed due its defendant as the nature of the offense, struct the basis for the defendant’s to establish factual 386 Opinion of the Court did the trial appear would also It plea. self- right against of his inform the failed has incrimination, though in his brief. this point raise this Court Williams, supra, indicates, *10 People v.
As in standard a strict compliance adopt will shortly is however, case, This pleas. of guilty the taking stand- compliance the substantial governed by still 380 v. Stearns People (1968), in ard enumerated Mich 704. improp- proceeding transcript the
Though that possible it is to the above erly points, silent as place took defendant instructions proper Therefore, earlier stage proceedings. at an whether determine trial court should remand, on the record informed properly of his acceptance at to the any prior time Williams, hear- supra. evidentiary If the See plea. substan- does not that the defendant was disclose ing then his mo- of each of his rights, informed tially tion granted. to vacate his must be
V. of error is that The defendant’s final contention counsel at the time of effectively denied sentence This concerns the sentencing. allegation he received and not his conviction. in
We Court of decision agree Appeals’ with the v. 6 Mich 217. In that case Dye (1967), App ab- the trial court sentenced the defendant sence of counsel. new sentenc- remanding Kavanagh now Justice T. Gr. ing, then-Judge, stated Amendment of the the Sixth United States to the states Constitution, applicable through Amendment, Fourteenth counsel to be requires pres- at one convicted of a crime ent the time is sentenced. Gadsden further v. support This finds reasoning v. Johnson Opinion op the Court (1955), App (223 States DC F2d United (CA 1950), 627) and Martin United States 5, Sentencing stage F2d 225. is a critical crim- proceedings, intelligent inal and absent an waiver represented by must be counsel. people’s argues The brief Mr. Pliskow, at- torney provided repre- for a codefendant, sufficient for the defendant. The sentation defendant should represented by been have his own counsel. A situ- single attorney represents in which a ation two or easily gives more defendants rise to a of in- conflict terest. in Glasser v.
Two defendants United States (62 680) US 60 S 86 L Ct Ed were conspiracy convicted of to defraud the United States. One had retained an defendant, Glasser, attorney represent him. Prior trial, appointed attorney represent court the same *11 appeal, second defendant. On Glasser’s conviction by was affirmed the Seventh Circuit of the United Appeals. States Court of Supreme The United States Court reversed ground Glasser’s on conviction right court had denied have as- the effective guaranteed by sistance of counsel as Sixth possi- Amendment. The Court held when the bility conflicting may exists that arise, interests two represented by defendants not should be the same attorney. particular
This case is of interest due to fact attorney that Glasser himself was an and did not specific objection raise a trial court’s final appoint attorney decision to for Glasser’s as counsel spite his codefendant well. circum- as of these Supreme stances, the United re- States Court still versed Glasser’s conviction. Mich 305 Opinion the Court further makes a
Before this was not assignment fact that due to the error speak time he opportunity at the provided with an raised in either issue was This was sentenced. Appeals, there Court of trial court or Erie Lake this Court. considered will not be fore v. Chilinski Land Co. found to have is the defendant’s
If on remand resentencing accepted, must take legally then been place. then issue as vacated, is If the sentencing moot. evidentiary hearing in accordance Remanded II, in sections outlined several instructions with and Y. IY JJ., concurred G. and T. Kavanagh, Swainson Williams, concurred Adams, J., J., M. C.
T. Kavanagh, result. in the
APPENDIX I PLEA PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT OF Roger Examination By the Court: Roger
Q. Johnson— (Interposing) A. Here. represented (Continuing)—are you Mr. Q. Willis Ward?
A. sir. Yes, your attorney who Court on Q. The addressed the *12 behalf?
A. sir. Yes, you you Q. know about Did tell Mr. Ward what regard shooting in the events 14th to the June Eugene Oliver? A. sir. Yes, v. Opinion op the Court you the law was did he—did he tell what And Q. regard you you in and counsel and advise Degree in and Murder in the First
law of Murder Degree, in included offenses? Second say again? you that me, Pardon would A. you regard the law in to Did he tell what Q. Murder? the crime of
A. sir. Yes, you possible Now know the maximum
Q. do Degree penalty or for Murder the Second is life years up any life in Prison? number of the State A. sir. Yes, you you guaranteed know that are
Q. Do further right Jury have a before these charges Jury? or before the Court without a
A. sir. Yes, you guil- you Do know can be found
Q. that before ty prove you offense that the must guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
A. sir. Yes, anybody you Q. Did Mr. Ward or did you any you the Court lenient with would be show special consideration— (Interposing) A. No. (Continuing) persuade you
Q. —in order to plead against your will?
A. No. you anybody you Q. Did threaten order to force plead guilty?
A. No. you pleading
Q. Are to the offense Mur- Degree you’ve thought der in the Second after it your carefully over own mind and consulted and thoroughly your it talked over with Mr. attor- Ward ney? A. Yeah. you pleading guilty AreQ. to this of Mur- offense Degree you
der in the Second because are that offense?
A. sir. Yes, *13 305 J. Brennan, by T. E. Dissenting Opinion plea accept right, will Court Q. All by Degree offered guilty the Second of Murder will be referred Defendant Each Defendants. both to the for Department Psychiatric Probation Clinic and investigation report. pre-sentence and Sentence imposed— will be (dissenting). to I am unable E. J. T. Brennan, my proposed by disposition Brother
agree with the Williams. delayed appeal delayed from denial of This is a trial. for motion new appeal by parameters of this are determined
The appeal from which the the motion for new trial taken. September 8, motion was and
That filed accompanied by an affidavit. it was The and are follows: affidavit as
“DELAYED MOTION FOB SETTING PLEA
ASIDE OF OF GUILTY A AND TRIAL FOR NEW by “Now Comes the above-named defendant his attorney, Kenneth Webb, A. and moves that Honorable set aside his Degree offense of Murder the Second entered and accepted by the Court on November 26,1962 and that granted following he be a new trial for the rea- grounds: sons and questioned by “1. That the defendant was not the Court at the time he entered his pleading guilty as to whether was of his own free will. questioned “2. That the defendant was not Court at the time he entered his as pleading guilty voluntarily. whether he promised by “3. That the defendant was attor-
ney, prosecuting attorney police an assistant and a officer that his sentence would be a term not ex- Dissenting Brennan, Opinion T. E. ten if he years plead guilty prison
ceeding murder degree. in the second beaten threatened, “4. That the defendant murder in the forced to second plead guilty degree officers. by police
“5. The hereof paragraphs *14 de- are the attached affidavit of the supported fendant. defendant this Honorable
“Wherefore, prays enter order aside setting and a new trial. granting A.
“Kenneth Webb for “Attorney Defendant “872 Penobscot Building “Detroit, Michigan 48226 961-0990 “Telephone: “September
“Affidavit I a “When was after arrested the incidence day the Police official named ‘CHUBB’ his partner and (name beat me and administered 1st unknown) degree corporal on punishment me from about 12 o’clock in about night to 9 o’clock in the day I until passed out.
“Later after I regained consciousness they police told me that I did or cop out not enter plea of when I to Court go ‘would they call from me over from the Wayne Jail County 1300 Beaubien Detroit Police Headquarters and beat * ** the hell out me again’.
“During the events the time from 14th, to June Nov. 26, officer Chubb or other some, interrogation officer called me from over from the Wayne County Jail Beaubien police headquarters to warn me what would if I happen did not out. cop
“Some time after arraignment, I appointed was an Attorney (name He came to unknown). visit me Wayne at the Jail, first County he told me thing that he could not beat the charge and that the only and best do thing to was to enter plea of second 386 Mich Brennan, by T. E. Dissenting Opinion every- plea. but left, He degree, to enter I refused up again bring I ask until it he would I Mm, saw time he did please get him the case. Which off me at appointed. to see He came almost Ward was Willis thing County the same Wayne He said Jail. my day Attorney, he left after she had talked two other as the to me that came and said Mother Judge and that Prosecutor, Mr. Ward and degree they cop that would if I out to second said * * * year get Max a I would not no more than ten cop I was out because “I told her that got I mad and said that murder. She Damm Pool and left. was a God arraignment, or final “At the final examination officers one Prosecutor and Ward, Mr. interrogated me that me told beaten who has they arranged I it all and that has talked degree plea. That enter a second me to Year Max. a Ten receive no more than
would lawyer cop I out. The “I didn’t to the said that want stayed *15 prosecutor police officer left and the and when we was alone he told me out but cop I that ‘Better good if I if knew what was for me’ ‘Because you you.’ I will hell don’t beat the out joking “I al- knew he was because he had that prove ready I Mr. when he came that, so told Ward changed my I I back that had to mind and that wanted cop say I me I out. He instructed that must they wasn’t threatened or be le- would * * * nient me., on ect. Judge except if “Because the the Plea I would not question right. did not answer the
“Respectfully submitted, Roger Johnson “/s/ “July 19, day “Sworn and AD subscribed to me before this Paul J. LaDow “/s/ “Notary County, Public, Jackson Mich. “My Expires April Commission 5,1969” v. Brennan, Dissenting Opinion T. E. January on 30, 1968, denied motion was That Judge Bledsoe of Re- Ford, Geraldine Honorable appendix appeal The on does not Court. corder’s Judge transcript made before of the record contain a hearing of that motion. Ford on the itself to dis- A motion for new trial addresses judge. discretion is of the Abuse of cretion presumed by appellate an not to court. Appellant’s motion new trial attacks in- Judge tegrity proceedings Recorder’s of the before 26, 1962, Arthur Koscinski had on November at appellant’s accepted. which the allegations In such where the the mo- case, supported by for new such trial, affidavit, tion are would vitiate that, true, the voluntariness of the plea, the trial to whom the motion is addressed court, ought hearing evidentiary to deter- to conduct mine truth of the made. evidentiary hearing a new inven- Such an is not post nor an area of convic- tion, innovation in the always It tion has the dis- remedies. been within judges testimony upon cretion of trial to take hearing a of motion for new trial. knowing way
On we record, this have no wheth- Judge evidentiary hearing er Ford conducted an January or not. 30, 1968,
Normally, appellant pre- it is the burden of the pertinent portions to this sent Court all of the record pro per, appeal below. If were not an I ground would but alone; favor affirmance on that appellant things, since unschooled in such already I would vote far, since we have come this *16 supplementing purpose of to remand for the sole appendix filed with addition of a ver- here proceedings transcript before of the had batim Judge Ford. Mich 324 her controvert- taken before testimony
If no of lenien- and of coercion allegations ing purpose. remand for that I would favor then cy, more nothing amount would a remand Such trial. for new motion of the a rehearing than Brennan, T. E. concurred J., Black, MICHIGAN CLUB OF v. AUTOMOBILE ROULO Error—Judgment—Summary Judgment—Complaint Appeal and 1. —Stating op Action. Cause reviewing Michigan Supreme Court, The function urged is summary judgment it grant of a where action, complaint is to examine fails to state cause of and the complaint it states a claim and decide whether disregard any pleaded nor to well fact not free to expend inference. op Duty— Delicto—Legal Duty—Breach 2. Torts—Action Ex Damages—Proximate Cause. (1) ex delicto that de- of a cause of aetion are: The elements (2) legal duty plaintiff, that defendant fendant owed (3) legal duty plaintiff, it owed to breached violated the damages, (4) plaintiff that defendant’s suffered damages suf- duty proximate was a cause of the breach by plaintiff. fered Rule—Duty. Negligence—Good 3. Samaritan Rule”, effect, is that The so-called “Good Samaritan injured person, passer-by to an owes who renders no assistance for Points in Headnotes References 2d, Appeal Jur Error 853. 5 Am 57 Am Jur 57 Am Jur 1] § seq. et 2d, Negligence '2] § 2d, Negligence 33-46. 3] §§ 39, 48, Jur, Jur, Frauds 60. Am Statute of Statute of '4] §§ 39, 160, Am Frauds §§