People v. Smith

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Lockett

    111 Mich. App. 405 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 6 times
    In People v Lockett, 111 Mich. App. 405, 408; 314 N.W.2d 640 (1981), this Court held that a guilty-plea form cannot be used as a substitute for the requirement that a court personally inform a defendant of a Jaworski right. This holding was in direct contradiction to an earlier decision of this Court in People v Smith, 98 Mich. App. 58; 296 N.W.2d 183 (1980).

    The word "yes" was penned in next to question 10. The people cite the case of People v Smith, 98 Mich. App. 58; 296 N.W.2d 183 (1980), in support of the argument that substantial compliance is all that is necessary to a meaningful plea and specific ritualistic advice from the mouth of the judge to the ear of the defendant is not mandated even as to a waiver of Jaworski rights. We are unable to interpret the court rule and the cases decided by the Supreme Court in Guilty Plea Cases and thereafter as expressing or implying such a holding.

  2. People v. Cain

    148 Mich. App. 765 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    This leads us to conclude that a determination of voluntariness and support for the finding that defendant is guilty of the charged offense may be satisfied by means other than "by questioning the defendant". In People v Smith, 98 Mich. App. 58; 296 N.W.2d 183 (1980), this Court examined the purpose behind GCR 1963, 785.7(d), as expressed by the Supreme Court in Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich. 96, 122; 235 N.W.2d 132 (1975): "The primary purpose of subsection (d) is to impress on the accused that by his plea of guilty he waives his right to a trial.

  3. People v. Tallieu

    132 Mich. App. 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 6 times

    For purposes of review of an arraignment or sentencing, a complete record is necessary, either by recording spoken words or by including written forms in the court file. DCR 785.3 was not violated here, as the written form received and signed by defendant is included in the court file. I am in agreement with the reasoning expressed in this Court's opinion in People v Smith, 98 Mich. App. 58; 296 N.W.2d 183 (1980). In Smith, the Court examined the purpose behind GCR 1963, 785.7(d), as expressed by the Supreme Court in Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich. 96, 122; 235 N.W.2d 132 (1975):

  4. People v. Lee

    336 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)

    "The court shall not accept a plea of guilty * * * without first personally addressing the defendant and informing him of and determining that he understands the following * * *." In People v Smith, 98 Mich. App. 58; 296 N.W.2d 183 (1980), a panel of this Court upheld the use of a plea-taking form where the trial court had addressed the defendant at the plea as to his understanding of what was contained therein. The Court held that defendant was adequately advised of his rights and quoted from Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich. 96, 122; 235 N.W.2d 132 (1975), in support of its holding:

  5. People v. Bender

    124 Mich. App. 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 21 times
    In People v Bender, 124 Mich. App. 571, 578; 335 N.W.2d 85 (1983), the Court of Appeals held that "[t]he right to be presumed innocent is of preeminent importance and, therefore, a defendant must be informed of this right on the record or his plea is constitutionally defective."

    Our review of the record discloses that, other than in the plea-taking form, defendant was not personally informed, precisely or imprecisely, of his right to be presumed innocent. In People v Lockett, 111 Mich. App. 405, 408; 314 N.W.2d 640 (1981), this Court held that a guilty-plea form cannot be used as a substitute for the requirement that a court personally inform a defendant of a Jaworski right. This holding was in direct contradiction to an earlier decision of this Court in People v Smith, 98 Mich. App. 58; 296 N.W.2d 183 (1980). Our Lockett decision was followed in People v Lee, 112 Mich. App. 194; 315 N.W.2d 896 (1982).

  6. People v. Lee

    315 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    In addition, the judge neglected to apprise defendant personally of many of the rights set forth in subrule 785.7. The cumulative magnitude of these errors compels reversal. However, if the sole error in this case had been the trial court's inadvertent failure orally to inform defendant of an enumerated right, I would have voted to affirm defendant's conviction under the rationale of People v Smith, 98 Mich. App. 58; 296 N.W.2d 183 (1980), which I endorse. See also Chief Judge DANHOF'S dissenting opinion in People v Lockett, 111 Mich. App. 405, 409; 314 N.W.2d 640 (1981).