finding it an “anomaly” that the same attorney who represented the defendant at his guilty plea would later help the defendant petition the Michigan Supreme Court to review the guilty plea procedure on the claim that the defendant did not understand his rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty
How later courts described this case
- finding it an “anomaly” that the same attorney who represented the defendant at his guilty plea would later help the defendant petition the Michigan Supreme Court to review the guilty plea procedure on the claim that the defendant did not understand his rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty
- the standards of which have been held applicable to any plea taken after the decisional date of Boykin
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Black, J.
{dissenting). I adopt the opinion of Judges Danhoe and Snow ( 25 Mich App 540 -555) and therefore vote to affirm.