From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shekoski

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jun 19, 1974
393 Mich. 134 (Mich. 1974)

Summary

In People v Shekoski, 393 Mich. 134; 224 N.W.2d 656 (1974), this Court had held that "strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient."

Summary of this case from People v. Saffold

Opinion

Docket No. 56,076.

Case below, Court of Appeals No. 17,870, memorandum opinion of June 19, 1974.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, George N. Parris, Prosecuting Attorney, Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Stephen F. Osinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. Lawrence B. MacDonald, for defendant. (Docket No. 56,076.) Case below, Court of Appeals No. 17,870, memorandum opinion of June 19, 1974.


ORDER

Entered November 21, 1974. — REPORTER.

On order of the Court, defendant-appellant's application for leave to appeal is considered, and the same is hereby granted. The requirements for a valid guilty plea after June 1, 1973 are set forth specifically in GCR 1963, 785.7. The bench and bar are hereby advised that strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient. GCR 1963, 785.7(5).

The Court, sua sponte, pursuant to GCR 1963, 865.1(7), reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and remands the case to the Macomb County Circuit Court for a new trial.

LEVIN and M.S. COLEMAN, JJ., dissenting.


Summaries of

People v. Shekoski

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jun 19, 1974
393 Mich. 134 (Mich. 1974)

In People v Shekoski, 393 Mich. 134; 224 N.W.2d 656 (1974), this Court had held that "strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient."

Summary of this case from People v. Saffold

In People v Shekoski, 393 Mich. 134; 224 N.W.2d 656 (1974), the Supreme Court mandated strict adherence to the letter of GC R 785.7. According to Shekoski, neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will save a plea procedure which did not rigidly follow the requirements of Rule 785.7. Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Rule 785.7 as mandated by Shekoski.

Summary of this case from People v. Rice
Case details for

People v. Shekoski

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v SHEKOSKI

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Jun 19, 1974

Citations

393 Mich. 134 (Mich. 1974)
224 N.W.2d 656

Citing Cases

People v. Rice

The record also contains no statement by the defendant in which he affirmatively acknowledges the plea…

People v. Spann

The failure of the trial court to state this obvious fact in no way prejudices defendant. And, if the…