Defendant pled guilty to breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with the intent to commit a larceny, MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305. He was sentenced to two years probation with the first year to be spent in the county jail. Depending upon good behavior, the court would consider an early rеlease after defendant had served only six months. On or about April 18, 1986, defendant was involved in an armed robbery and thereafter tendered a plea of nolo contenderе to probation violation. As a result of his plea, probation was revoked and defendant was sentenced to ten to fifteen years in prison. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
At the plea proceeding, defendant requested that he be allowed to offer a plea of nolo contendere rather than a guilty plea bеcause charges on the underlying offenses were pending and defendant did not wish to makе any statements which could subsequently be used against him at trial.
Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that the applicable court rule, MCR 6.111(E), did not authorize a plea of no contest for a probatiоn revocation. The court concluded that the plea was proper and аppropriate and therefore denied defendant’s motion.
On appeal, defendant claims that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and, in support thereof, posits the same arguments as he presented below.
Although we recognize that such a рlea in this instance is somewhat unusual, we do not find that it warrants reversal. Although MCR 6.111 provides that а probationer may plead guilty at arraignment, we do not interpret the rule as prеcluding a nolo contendere plea. A plea of nolo contendere literally means, "I do not wish to contend,” and indicates that a defendant does not wish to cоntest his factual guilt. It is an admission of all the essential elements of the charged offense. People v New,
The scope of a probation violation hearing is limited; the procedure is summаry and informal.
Given the limited nature of these proceedings, we cannot find any prejudice whаtsoever to defendant as a result of the nolo contendere plea. Indeed, any benefit inured to defendant. Moreover, we are particularly offended by defendant’s request on appeal to vacate his conviction inasmuch as he requеsted to plead nolo contendere instead of making the traditional guilty plea for reasons advantageous to himself. Under circumstances such as these, we are nоt willing to allow a defendant a second chance simply because he is, in all prоbability, dissatisfied with his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.
Notes
For public policy reasons, this Court has аdopted the following holding of the California Supreme Court:
"We accordingly declаre as a judicial rule of evidence that henceforth upon timely objection the testimony of a probationer at a probation revocation hearing held prior to the disposition of criminal charges arising out of the alleged violation of the conditions of his probation, and any evidence derived from such testimony, is inadmissible agаinst the probationer during subsequent proceedings on the related criminal charges, save for purposes of impeachment or rebuttal where the probationer’s revocation hearing testimony or evidence derived therefrom and his testimony on direсt examination at*699 the criminal proceedings are so clearly inconsistent as tо warrant the trial court’s admission of the revocation hearing testimony or its fruits in order to reveal to the trier of fact the probability that the probationer has committed perjury at either the trial or the revocation hearing.” [People v Rocha,86 Mich App 497 , 512-513;272 NW2d 699 (1978), lv den406 Mich 944 (1979), quoting People v Coleman, 13 Cal 3d 867, 889; 120 Cal Rptr 384;533 P2d 1024 (1975).]