*1 v RIAL PEOPLE v BEENE PEOPLE (Calendar 5). 6, 57094, Argued May 4, Docket Nos. 57095. Nos. 31, 1976. Decided December convicted, plea Peggy guilty, possession Rial was on her of of of Court, marijuana Sweet, J., Luden in Kalamazoo Circuit F. years convicted, probation. George sentenced to two Beene was plea attempted larceny guilty, building on his of in a Court, Fox, J., Raymond Kalamazoo Circuit W. and sentenced years probation. charged to two The defendants were violating probation counsel, hearings their waived original admitted the violations and were sentenced on the appealed Appeals convictions. Defendants to the Court of (Docket 20250) 20249, Supreme sponte Nos. Court sua granted appeal Guilty leave to with other Plea Cases. 394 Mich Held: plea accepting The court guilty rule for apply proceedings. does not Probation stage prosecution revocation is not of a criminal and the aas convicted is entitled to more limited process of due than one who is accused of a crime. Each adequately procedural defendant informed of his and con- rights: allegations stitutional that if he wished contest the violations, held, would be and he be would entitled to counsel. There no basis believe that the defendants were possible penalties waiving rights. unaware before separate opinion. Justice agreed concurred in a Levin He governing acceptance the statute and court rule of a prescribe to an information do not the advice given acceptance before violation, separately and wrote of the need for rules [2 7] [1] [9] [8] [10] — 21 Am Jur Am21 21 Am Jur 21 Am Jur 21 Am Jur Jur 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, References 2d, Criminal Law Criminal Law Criminal Criminal Criminal Law §§ for Points Law §Law 568. §§ §§ §§ 487, 492-495, 567, 565, 571. 568. in Headnotes 568. Mich 431 proceedings. also that in He wrote adequately probation is case of Rial record, supported by issue not raised on her evidence *2 more appeal. are informal than procedures followed the While procedural trial, minimum established court a decisions requirements, reflect that a defendant record should and the probation violation was so desiring plead guilty informed of to probation rights the incidents of a of and of his constitutional reasonably hearing warrant conclusion that to violation hearing pleading a is and that in he understands what voluntarily giving up right guilty knowingly his to a he is stating rights hearing A court rule those and incidents. hearings probation procedure violation to be followed provide objective given to be would an the nature of advice evaluating of of violation was for claims basis voluntarily knowingly, understandingly, made. not Affirmed.
Opinion of the Court Guilty 1. Revocation. Law —Plea of —Probation Criminal accepting rule on the court (GCR 1963, proceedings apply probation not to revocation does 785.7). Process. 2. Law —Probation Revocation —Due Criminal prosecution; stage of a criminal Probation revocation is not procedural rights proceedings deal prosecution in a but with the more limited an accused rights probationer process has been convicted of a who due crime. Guilty 3. Law —Probation Revocation —Plea —Con- Criminal Rights. stitutional procedural probationer adequately his A informed probation proceedings revoke where to constitutional allegations of he if he wished to contest the was advised that hearing would be of the conditions violations counsel; again he entitled to he need not held and would be possible on of the maximum and minimum sentence advised pled originally guilty. of the to which he conviction Concurring
Levin, Law —Probation—Revocation—Constitutional Criminal Rights. rights constitutionally guaranteed panoply in a crimi- The full People v Rial probation proceedings, nal to trial does attach but violating right accused of his has the counsel, witnesses, right right produce to notice of him, charges against right opportunity and the an him, explain away against charges Sled which indicates as hearing requirement a minimum that the must be conducted in meaningful way. Rights 5. Criminal Law —Probation—Revocation—Constitutional —Appeal. appeal A is entitled determi- relating nation matters those to the violation and the on it. 6. Criminal Law —Probation—Revocation—Constitutional Rights. person charged
A with violation of is entitled to advice regarding statutory right constitutional right; very informality and the nature of that especially important makes it that there be advice and *3 meaningful that it be transmitted in a manner. Rights 7. Criminal Law —Probation—Revocation—Constitutional Guilty. —Plea of probation proceeding of a record revocation should reñect probationer desiring guilty plead that a to to a probation violation has been so informed his constitutional rights probation and of the of a incidents violation reasonably to warrant the he conclusion that understands what pleading guilty knowingly such in is and that he is voluntarily giving up and and such and incidents. Guilty 8. Criminal Law —Probation—Revocation—Plea —Ad- Rights. vice of stating probation A court rule to be followed in hearings given and the nature of the advice to be probationer pleading guilty promulgated provide should be to objective evaluating basis for claims understandingly, knowingly, voluntarily violation was made. Guilty. 9. Criminal Law —Probation—Revocation—Plea requiring regarding any Absent a court rule advice minimum impose may probation the maximum sentence the if predicate ñnding a factual revoked or for a that a 399 Mich Opinion of the Court probation pleading guilty was unaware of of violation imposed might so sentence that made, voluntarily understandingly, knowingly, there no give advice. for reversal for failure basis 10. Law —Probation—Revocation—Association. Criminal showing probationer’s association with a Absent a proba- having or will result in the resulted a criminal record activity, becoming in further associa- involved tioner justify tion alone does not tend imposition jail sentence. General, Robert A.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney A. Derengoski, Burge, Donald General, Solicitor Wheeler, M. Stephen Prosecuting Attorney, Prosecuting people. for the Attorney,
Robert L. Adams for defendants. appeals among Per were Curiam. Defendants’ our on May the 114 transferred Court Guilty After our decision Cases, (1975), Plea we appeals the defendants’ be jointly ordered to consider argued applicability submitted proceed- of GCR 785.7 to ings. apply. We conclude that subrule does not possession of mari- pled
Defendant placed on for in 1973 and was two juana pled guilty attempted Defendant Beene years. placed larceny building in a 1972 and was also years. two were issued for subsequently Bench warrants *4 having defendants violated the arrest both At probations. terms of their initial rights hearings, both defendants waived their on the a appointed counsel and formal charges. Both had admitted violated case, the trial probations. terms of their In each People v Rial op the Court subsequently revoked probation sen- pursuant tenced the to the original defendant conviction. that, to the argue prior
Defendants court’s ac- ceptance a waiver formal and to an attorney, court must of his at advise a defendant possible penalty also of involved if urge were revoked. Defendants this equate Court formal hear- ing with a trial by imposing restrictions stan- dards on a defendant’s admission imposed violation which are upon similar those under Rule 785.7. In Gagnon 778, 782; Scarpelli, US 93 S Ct 1756; (1973), L36 Ed 2d the United States Supreme Court stated: revocation, parole revocation, "Probation like
stage
prosecution,
but does result
in a loss
of liberty. Accordingly,
probationer,
we hold that a
like
parolee,
a preliminary
entitled to
and a final
hearing,
specified
under
conditions
v Brewer,
Morrissey
supra.”1
Defendants’
analogy
guilty plea
trial and
is unsound. Probation
a stage
revocation is not
prosecution.
a criminal
In these proceedings we
deal
procedural
rights of an accused
prosecution,
a criminal
but with the more lim-
process rights
ited due
of one
who is a
because he has been
Gagnon,
convicted of a crime.
also,
Pickett,
supra,
See
(1974).
305;
could revoked result "penalty” This result of a direct hearing. actually What defendants ar- again gue is that court should advised *6 possible them the minimum and maximum might imposed sentence which convic- they originally tion for the crime to which pled. They had rule that ask this Court to a waiver of accepted should not be constitutional again by they the trial court until have been they comply advised that if with have failed probations, terms of their the court will sentence they them for the crimes of which were convicted. adopt ruling To such a would be to exalt form over substance. allege they not that
Defendants do were una- penalty they ware crime to which pled guilty, allege they they do nor were probation, sentencing, unaware that purély in lieu grace, right. a matter of not of MCLA They allege 771.4; that, MSA 28.1134. not do probation, they the time entered onto were thereof, unaware of all the terms and conditions including penalty for violation. It would be proba- unrealistic for this Court to believe complies willingly tioner all the strict terms including regular and conditions of his meetings being officer, with his without might happen aware of what should he refuse to comply with those terms and conditions. particularly circumstances,
Under these light hearings, of the nature of arguments fail. defendants’ must Affirmed. J.,
Kavanagh, Williams, Coleman, C. Fitz- Ryan, JJ., Lindemer, gerald, concurred. Levin, J. I (concurring). agree statute1 of an acceptance accused court rule2 governing charging information to an person’s prescribe do offense commission of give should the advice accepting before
probation violation.3 cases, judges
In these advised consolidated of the of their counsel4 each defendants They both charge. waived nature of pled guilty. counsel and speak to the need for
I write separately concerning promulgation of rules express my and to proceedings probation violation Peggy apprehension in the case inadequately revoking decision her evidence, an issue supported by concededly record the issue been appeal; raised her if had of the record supplementation raised remand for *7 required. would be minimally
I
it
said
revoca
While
has been
proceeding
stage
prosec
is
of a criminal
tion
"not
procedures
and that
the
followed in such
ution”5
trial,6
the
are more informal
than at
proceedings
Court,7
Supreme
United States
decisions
the
1
768.35;
28.1058.
MCLA
MSA
2
1963,
GCR
785.7.
3
(1976).
Hardin,
204, 206;
People
App
v
70 Mich
See
4
128, 137;
254;
Mempa
Rhay,
19 L
2d 336
v
389 US
88 S Ct
Ed
(1967).
5
778,
1756;
Scarpelli,
782;
Gagnon
411 US
93 S Ct
this Court of the Court of and estab requirements: lished procedural minimum "It panoply constitutionally full true the guaranteed in a criminal trial do attach to these However, proceedings. held an it has been individual violating right has the accused of counsel, to witnesses, right produce right the the to to him, charges against right notice of opportunity the to charges explain against away to filed him. a minimum We these cases indicate re believe quirement must conducted in .a Martin, meaningful way.” People App v Mich 191 (1975) (citations omitted). 107; 232 NW2d must be served written notice
"[T]he
probation
93 S Ct
requirements
Scarpelli,
778;
proceedings Gagnon
revocation
411 US
(1973),
process
L
Ed 2d 656
minimum due
hearing:
for
revocation
"
(a)
'They
[proba
written
claimed
include
notice of the
violation of
(b)
(c)
tion];
him;
[probationer]
against
to
disclosure
of evidence
present
opportunity
documentary
to be heard in
witnesses
(d)
evidence;
confront
cross-examine
(unless
specifically
good
adverse
witnesses
officer
finds
(e)
allowing confrontation);
cause for not
hearing
a "neutral and detached”
* * *
(f)
;
body
by
a written statement
the factfinders as
revoking [probation].’
to the evidence relied on and
reasons
Brewer,
Morrissey
supra,
(Emphasis supplied.)”
US at
Smith,
App
NW2d 431
Relating
The American Bar Association
Standards
Probation
1970)
(Approved Draft,
provide:
proceedings.
"5.4 Nature of revocation
"(a)
open
The court
should
revoke
without an
court
by
proceeding
attended
incidents:
"(i) prior
"(ii) representation by
violation;
alleged
notice of the
written
counsel;
appointed
retained or
"(iii)
contested,
where the violation
establishment of the violation
government by preponderance
of the evidence.
imposed following
according
"Sentence should be
applicable
original
procedures
sentencing proceed-
the same
are
ings.
"(b)
government
represented by
is entitled to be
in a
counsel
*8
proceeding.
contested revocation
"(c)
court,
proceedings
open
As in the case of all other
a record
proceeding
preserved
the revocation
manner that it can
should
be made and
in such
transcribed as needed.
"(d)
revoking probation
appealable
An
order
should be
after
resentenced.”
offender has been
431
Mich
440
399
Opinion by
hearing.
prior to the
In re
charges against
him
(1957);
McLeod,
People
434;
340
v
83 NW2d
348 Mich
(1966).
Wood,
895
At the
342;
2
139 NW2d
App
Mich
produce
hearing
entitled
witnesses
probationer
cross-examine
confront
as to
and evidence as well
521;
Bobowski,
21
313 Mich
NW2d 838
In
witnesses.
(1946).
re
proof
violation
present
of the
The
must
state
100;
Mich
10 NW2d
charges. People Myers, 306
323
v
(1943).
only
is the
factor to be
Evidence of the
probation.
determining
to revoke
whether
considered
104;
(1948);
681
People
Sutton,
33 NW2d
v
322 Mich
Elbert,
677; 176
People
App
NW2d 467
v
21 Mich
(1970).
hearing
record of
that
There must be a
requirements have
process
been
demonstrates
the due
Wood,
probationer
People
supra. If the
de-
satisfied.
sires,
v
People
representation
he is entitled to
counsel.
71;
(1975);
App
People
834
Kitley,
v
59 Mich
228 NW2d
Hazen,
576;
(1969);
App
v
19 Mich
NW2d
Brown,
App
People v
17 Mich
NW2d 522
(1969);
Marshall,
App 578;
16 Mich
168 NW2d
(1969).
probationer
appeal
to an
The
is entitled
right following
determination
relating
on those matters
Pickett,
391 Mich
thereon.
Moore,
(1974); People
Although neither statute nor court rule ex- requires advise a pressly charged violation of his it cannot be that a hearing, doubted regarding entitled to advice his constitutional statutory right and the nature of right. very informality makes especially important it there be advice and in meaningful it be transmitted manner. persons vague Most have at least a idea of what gone Unless through experi- trial is. ence, persons, lawyers, few even will have *9 Levin, Opinion by J.
conception probation of the nature of a hearing. principle requires
On the same which that an person pleading guilty accused to a criminal of- rights fense be informed of his constitutional reasonably of the incidents of a trial "as to war- rant the conclusion that he understood what a by pleading guilty trial is and that he was know- ingly voluntarily giving up right his to a trial rights incidents”,8 and such the record should probationer desiring plead reflect that a to a violation was informed of rights his constitutional and of the incidents of a reasonably "as to war- rant the conclusion” that he understands what pleading guilty such a knowingly is and that in he is voluntarily giving up his and such and incidents. In Becker, Mich 84 NW2d (1957), appeal from a revocation, it was observed: instanter, reject, "We any thought the defend- ant, criminal, because a convicted stands before us with degree any vulnerability, that he is shorn of rights. guarantees, constitutional truth, These meet challenge their real sought when employed be
by the upright wicked. righteous and the need them not.” judges’ The defendants contend that failure to advise them of the maximum sentences that might imposed upon proba- be revocation of their requires guilty pleas tions be vacated. opinion responds The memorandum the de- allege fendants did not were unaware of Cases, Guilty Plea 399 Opinion by to which they pled penalty far crimes violation. or of the penalty in the future to may expected Probationers seek eviden allegations make the necessary they understandingly, tiary hearings on whether pled A court voluntarily guilty. knowingly, *10 in stating proba to be followed rule tion and nature of the hearings an given provide objective advice to be would basis for evaluating allegations.9 such require regard- advice
Such a court rule should
ing
minimum
the maximum sentence
any
and
is
While
judge may impose
if
revoked.
such advice to a
judge
required
provide
is
offense,
proba-
to an
pleading guilty
defendant
may
tioner
not have received
advice because
may
he
he
was convicted at a trial or
not under-
stand that on revocation of
he will be
sentenced for the
offense of which he
substantive
convicted,
for
ago,
was
some time
the violation
often
seemingly
a condition
matter,
e.g.,
report
pro-
inoffensive
failure to
hours,
officer,
consumption
bation
out after
staying
beverages.
of alcoholic
question
presented
in the
differs from
in
The
instant cases
those
Smith, supra, p 641,
People
plead
v
where the
did not
Appeals
the Court of
aside the
of his
and
set
for the
reasons:
"Defendant,
case,
present
opportunity
in the
afforded
was not
an
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at his revocation hear-
ing.
merely questioned by
judge
personal
He was
the trial
who
no
had
knowledge
showing
probation.
facts
violation of
are
Since we
express
find either an
unable to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses
cause stated
waiver of defendant’s
good
this record or
confrontation,
allowing
by the trial
court for not
aside,
revoking probation
order
is set
the sentence vacated
preju-
custody
remanded to the
of the trial
defendant
dice on
more,
revoked,
court without
part
proper hearing.
of the court to conduct a
Further-
that,
again
suggest
in
we
the event defendant’s
presentence report
updated,
in
be
order to insure accu-
Malkowski,
sentencing.
People
Mich
information at
See
v
rate
(1971).”
244, 249;
Although assert that the defendants should given cases, have in the instant been such advice requiring predi- it or a a court rule factual absent finding were cate unaware of the might imposed in sentences quence conse- pleas understandingly, were not voluntarily knowingly, made, there no basis for reversal.10 question awareness whether a defendant’s maximum deciding sentence is a factor guilty recently considered in whether a to be "understandingly voluntarily to an offense is made” separate opinion People Mauch, considered in (1976): 646, 671-672;247NW2d 5 question "The whether a defendant’s awareness of the maximum determining sentence is a factor is to be considered whether his 'understandingly voluntarily meaning made’ within the requirements former rule and minimum constitutional was left unre- by Ferguson, solved this Court’s decision is (1970), affirming equally by vote divided a decision Appeals.15 of the Court of many Michigan, jurisdictions, "In as in the issue is now resolved requiring court rule or statute that the inform the defendant of the maximum sentence.16 jurisdictions, noting "Courts in other the constitutional roots knowing standard, prerequisite understanding held awareness *11 plea guilty.17 the maximum Where the is a sentence valid show record fails to that the defendant was aware required.18 maximum on sentence that issue is question "A has not been held on the whether Mauch was finding following hearing aware of the maximum sentence. Absent a sentence, that Mauch was factual understanding of the maximum unaware there is not a predicate for further consideration whether his was voluntary.” and "15 People Ferguson, App 362; 13 Mich jurisdictions, length regarded "16In some sentence as a 'conse
quence’ required judge, with the result that on account is See, Johnson, e.g., parte to state the maximum sentence. Ex (Tex 180, 1973); App, Harper States, SW2d 181 Crim 499 368 United (CA 53, 10, 1966);Anno, duty F2d 55-56 Court’s or advise admonish consequences ofplea 549, guilty, accused as to 97 ALR2d 571-574. "17 (CA 5, Wainwright, 1969); Wade v 420 898 F2d United States ex Damon, (CA 2, 718, 1974), rel Leeson v 496 F2d 721 US cert den 419 954; 215; State, (1974); 95 S 42 L Ct Ed 2d 172 Carter v 291 Ala (1973); Hooper, 277 So2d (1971). 898 State v 107 Ariz 487 394 P2d "18 (CA States, ex rel Hill United States v United F2d State, 1971); supra; Hooper, supra; Schroeder, Carter v State v State 1974).” (Iowa, NW2d Opinion by
II relationship appears between It there was probation that was vio- the condition of Beene’s lated, intoxicating beverages, drinking and his appears history It further behavior. placed he continued on that after he was thus, and, there larcenies to drink to commit relationship the condition between is of substantial the revocation that was violated prison imposition subsequent sentence. relationship condition, Rial, between
In person having a criminal "association” with a violation, revocation, record, asserted appears sentence, tenuous. possession marijuana
Rial was convicted of was in an automobile which evidence that she large marijuana quantity of was found and her culpable. acknowledgment The auto- that she was young He too man. was mobile was driven convicted. principal violation —the charge— violations all relate this
other asserted is (not young Rial was with Dan Pease of her arrest on man she with at time was charge) marijuana arrested on a when he was appear, charge, does not nature of which although pro- her associate with him continued to It told her not to see him. bation officer engaged Pease criminal activ- claimed that ity that Rial the time was arrested or he possession law after her conviction of violated marijuana. *12 Arguably, the law re- Rial’s involvement with exceptionable from her association with sulted v showing young Nevertheless, men. absent her "association” with a becoming in her record had resulted or will result activity, in involved further criminal association justify proba- revocation of alone does not tend to imposition jail tion and sentence. probation, placed
When Rial was liquor her told she from the use of must refrain marijuana. is no evidence There that she violated told that condition. He her she would job. appears have to continue work at her It job that she so her did and then lost in least part investigation as a result of detention for her following Pease’s arrest. Her six-day period report two probation in failures to her apparently officer were related to her justified against moving well fear that he was her because of events her detention in con- including intemper- arrest, nection with Pease’s part ate outburst on her when she was detained. years probationer’s In recent the notion that the liberty except conditional can revoked in ac- procedures upon cordance with fair careful inquiry undergone has considerable modification.11 increasingly subjected Conditions of are judicial review.12 judgment, and Police Science 479 guards.” People authorizes the court to exercise its as to conditions of (1970); People Terminelli, supra, Colum Rev 181 ing Granting Your Conditions Are 11See, Bassett, Discretionary Similarly, See, also, Comment, "The Conditions of fn L 11; Note, point consonant with our constitutional see Revoking Higgins, People Becker, (1967); Imlay Limitations Probation, all In, (1969). Judicial Review of of the above 349 Mich 35 Fed Probation 3 Probation, 8 Ga L Rev 466 Upon Power and judgment 22 Mich judgment 476, 488; App 635; 60 J Criminal Trial Glasheen, Court exercised must be a Procedural Probation App 479; with a broad discretion although (June, NW2d See What Condition Discretion (1974); L, statutory 1971); Criminological Conditions, Rights the statute NW2d (1957). Comment, Bassett, Impos- in the legal safe- *13 431 399 Levin, by J. Opinion pro- appeal probationers condition of a will New power beyond ground it is on the bation impose. to of the court attempt comply chances, to Most will take hope do not the extent to and probation appeal process lenient. The will be or the officer consuming pro- time too is far period two-year meaningful alternative; vide appeal expire generally before is will appellate completed. Moreover, courts while willing conditions, success review are now more on appeal far from certain. relatively rare case where It will be a charged will violation with Advising him of technical violation. of at least a important important. more It is indigent, accept encourage assignment probationer, if provide meaning- counsel, and to inquiry hearing13 can be made at which ful violating charged he is with the condition whether properly imposed the asserted and whether was justifies and incarceration: revocation all-encompassing nature of vague and "Given the proba it is not difficult for the probation, conditions as needed. a technical violation tion officer to muster steady state of probationers are Many relating keeping as a result of conditions alcohol, hours,’ abstaining and various from 'decent relating activity. These violations to sexual prohibitions usually until probation officer go by unenforced given that a new he is reason to believe time as Exposing the Czajkoski, has occurred.” criminal offense Officer, 37 Federal Role of the Probation Quasi-Judicial (Sept, 12-13 Probation 1973).14 Felons, Imposed L 1962 Wis of Probation Wisconsin Conditions Birzon, Analysis, of Probation: An Conditions Rev Best (1963). Georgetown L J Martin, App 232 NW2d by quoted preceded portion of the article above was following: Peggy emotionally involved Rail was with Dan years Pease. marijuana charge was 17 old when arrested on the She about two months short jail birthday her 18th sentenced to when term year one essen- tially failing relationship her to terminate Pease. thorough exploration
There circum- *14 stances arrest with Pease. her The rec- any part tendency on ord engage her to does reflect activity any or in further criminal indeed relationship other anti-social Her conduct.15 with personal appear one, Pease does to violations, judicial "In the case of so-called technical the role of the probation amplified. officer becomes Technical violations are those by probation which are somehow covered conditions of but which specified report are not in the statutes. Failure to to the probation type persons might officer or failure avoid undesirable abe probation proceed of technical violation. Oftentimes officers the basis of technical violation when new criminal offenses are suspected larly against is easily proved. prosecutors regu but cannot be Police and upon probation call officer to invoke some technical violation probationer who believe has committed a new It crime. patently put easier to as defendant behind bars a result of a prison violation it is to than send him to as a result full-fledged consenting proceed trial. In on the basis of a offense, technical violation when issue the real is a new criminal effect, playing judicial deciding officer role. In he is there is sufficient basis to new against conclude the defendant is placed and thus offense deserves have the technical violation Czajkoski, Quasi-Judicial Exposing him.” Role of the 1973). Officer, (Sept, 37 Fed 12 Probation Probation Relating Bar The American Association Standards provide: to Probation 1970) Draft, (Approved Proceedings following "5.3 commission of another crime. proceeding solely upon "A revocation based commission of another ordinarily prior disposition crime should not be initiated to the However, charge. upon showing probable cause that another by probationer, crime has been committed court discretionary authority should have to detain the without pending charge.” bail determination of new criminal 15 771.4; See MCLA MSA 28.1134. See, also, People Acosta, App 65 Mich 601 NW2d (1975), the Court declared: where charged having "The notice defendant Mich 431 directed against of action portended a concert of any public have been third person or concern. shotgun containing present in an ammunition. been automobile however, order, was defend
The basis
the trial court’s
Assuming arguendo that defendant was
ant’s anti-social conduct.
charge,
properly
had no
defendant
notice
notified of
initial
expected
behavior.
of anti-social
While the
the
he was
meet a
finding may
characterization of
court’s
viewed
a mere
trial
previously
charge, we have
held that a
conduct contained in the
probationer
specific
charged
and the
must have notice of
People
Elbert,
thereto.
revocation
Mich
to be restricted
(1970);
v Davenport,
App
App
7 Mich
NW2d
(1967).”
613;