*1 100 SEDA-RUIZ
PEOPLE v 4, 1978, Docket No. 78-1330. Submitted October at Escanaba. De- 7, cided November 1978. convicted, plea passing guilty, Luis J. Seda-Ruiz was on his of days three nonsufficient fund checks in ten with intent defraud, Marquette Court, McDonald, Circuit John E. J. The plea exchange charge. was in for dismissal of another similar and, The defendant was sentenced to as a condition ordered restitution on a number of appeals, claiming checks. Defendant that there was an insuffi- acceptance cient factual basis for of his and that the order of restitution was unlawful and unreasonable. Held: pled guilty 1. The defendant to sufficient facts to allow guilty charged. inference that he was in fact of the crime This acceрtance plea. was sufficient for of the properly imposed 2. Restitution was as a condition of tion. Because the defendant claims that he has not had an оpportunity to see the checks which he has been ordered to good and because he claims that not all of the checks are his, the evidentiary hearing case should be remanded for an proper a determination of the amount of restitution. Affirmed, and remanded. Maher, J., separately concurred to state his cоncern that the record does not reveal that restitution for all of the passed by part agreement. defendant was made a of the was, Unless it restitution should be ordеred for those pled listed the information to which the defendant
guilty dropped and in the information which was of the agreement.
References for Points in Headnotes [1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 485, 486, 492. [2, [3] Validity 3] 21 Am Jur 21 Am Jur guilty pleas Supreme 2d, 2d, Criminal Law 491.5. Criminal Law 565. — § § Cоurt cases. 25 L Ed 2d 1025. v Seda-Ruiz Opinion of the Court Court Basis for Plea —In-
1. Criminal Law —Plea —Factual ference. acceptance of a defendant’s A factual basis for *2 prоperly the what where court asked defendant established his activities in he had done and the defendant described reasonably inculpatory inference could sufficient detail an admitted. be drawn from facts 2. Law —Probation—Restitution. Criminal imposed upon a condition of be defendant as Restitution however, pay probation; a dеfendant has been ordered to where passed for a number without suffi- restitution had to that he has not an cient funds and claims required good and that look at all the cheсks he is to make his, not the case should be remanded some the checks were evidentiary hearing proper an to determine amount of for restitution. Maher, J. Agreement 3. —Restitution. Criminal Law —Plea —Plea charge passing pled guilty as to a bad checks A defendant who agreement charges under other similar of a restitution, pay dropped, to should were and who was ordered for those listed in the restitution be pled guilty the information which information to which he and checks, dropped, not other unless rеstitution for bad part of the all of defendant’s bad checks was made a for plea agreement. Attorney Kelley, General, A. Robert Frank Gary Derengoski, Walker, Genеral, L. Solicitor Prosecuting Attorney, Solka, As- and Thomas L. Prosecuting people. Attorney, sistant Appellate Bennett, P. E. Assistant State Defend- appeal. ant, on for defendant Gillis, P.J., J. H. D. E. Holbrook Before: R. M. JJ. plea bargain The in a defendant Per Curiam. agreement pled guilty 14, 1977, on October passing days ten three nonsufficient fund checks in the Court cоntrary defraud, 750.131a; with intent to MCL 28.326(1). bargain provided MSA The for the people charge pending against to dismiss similar performed. 2, defendant. This was On December years 1977, defendant wаs sentenced to five tion with the condition that the first six months be county jail and, further, served in the that defend- $3,299.65 ant make restitution for which included charge the three checks mentioned many claiming appeals right, checks. other Defendant inadequate factual basis and condition of restitution was unlawful and unrea- sonable. court from trial elicited the fac- following
tual basis in the manner: "THE it COURT: Tell me what was did? "THE DEFENDANT: wrote three checks within— *3 21st, August the the twenty-five 23rd for amounts of dollars, I did $14.16 not have the $25.00 funds bank, in the sir.” We determine that under the "infеrence” test of Cases, 96; Plea 395 Mich 235 NW2d 132 (1975), properly factual the basis was established. secondly
The defendant claims that the condi tion of restitution was unlawful and unreasonable pay in that back, he was in addition to the in amounts the checks mentioned in the charge, amounts for other nonsufficient fund passed. principle permitting he require repayment the court to such forth in is set App Nawrocki, the cases of v 225; (1967), People Gallagher, 154 45 NW2d v 55 (1974), 613; Mich 92 NW2d lv den 393 (1974). princi keeping Mich 766 This is in the with ple justice requiring perpеtra of of restitution People v Seda-Ruiz of Court tor of the offense to back the entire amount by course of obtained his criminal conduct. sentencing following At of dеfendant place: took Well, now, "THE you COURT: stand here convicted plea your guilty charge to a writing three days; nonsufficient checks in ten I realize that that bargain entеred as result of a prosecutor’s
with the for dropping office of some charges; agreement other and an on their to rec- jail ommend prison. and some time . . . and no know, youAs probably department tion has a prison you. recommended sentence for In fact, they prison have recommended a maximum sen- you. tencе old, you years you "I find are that criminal nineteen that have record, prior you no that wrote checks which persons $3,700.00. have caused other to lose excess of go
Have had an over this list of checks that have been..... Honor, attorney]: "MR. SHUMAR Your I [defense
don’t believe he went over the specifically. list they We are aware were —it was a amount outstanding. of checks "THE It has COURT: been recommended-it has been-
"DEFENDANT: There’s . been some of that . . have been —that went down..... "THE . COURT: . . detailed to the Court $3,700.00.
amount something neighborhood is in the
[*] [*] [*] "THE Okаy. COURT: You years are nineteen old. going place you am on probation period for a of five and, years special condition of this there *4 going you is to be a repay money schedule for to you that have stolen from others. "I going include, am also your to as an item of that you jail. serve six county months in the probation department If the jail wants that time served your probation, at the conclusion I will consider that. App 87 Mich Maher, by R. M. J. probation department going I to consider what am in this roots no established do. You have
wishes to to the going to listen community; 11 am [sic] placed that should be as to restrictions department your upon you in movements. Luis, particularly I wasn’t you, that "I must tell five-year acceptance of the your impressed with you fact that to the period; your with reaction tion would be looking nor money. are this You to back expected you to have opportunity prove to us for an give prison. you that We want to right stay to out of going to easy. be going to It’s opportunity. It’s nоt be to going expected to period you are be tough real get and by paying what go to and start back joba work belong you. to that doesn’t you have taken from others it, And, make then beginning. you if don’t That’s yourself but to blame.
you will have no one prison. you I send to to sure that don’t "I want be you prison is going is to send to person who Rex Luis Seda-Ruiz. I talk to You down will
"That’s all. sit later.” not had now claims that he has
The defendant is that he to look at all the checks He now good restitution. required now are not his checks. alleges some under proper course of action rule that We but is to affirm the conviction the circumstances hearing concerning evidentiary remand for an of restitution to be correct amount Nawrocki, su People v defendant in accord with Gallagher, v pra, supra. juris- do not retain
Affirmed and remanded. We diction. in the M. concur
R. (concurring). conviction decision affirm defendant’s restitu- remand for clarification of amount must make. tion *5 People v Seda-Ruiz by separately my I write to state concern that record does not reveal that all the bad checks allegedly рart issued defendant were made plea agreement. agreed Unless defendant prose- make restitution for all the checks and the agreed charges cutor not to institute on the basis checks, of those not be all checks, restitution for but those pled listed the information to which he prossed and the information which was nolle рart plea agreement. of the case, In such a prosecutor course, bring would be entitled charges on the basis the checks which are not plea agreement. of the