Appeal from Wayne, James N. Canham, J.
Bashara, P. J., and N. J. Kaufman and D. F. Walsh, JJ.
1. -- Plea of Guilty -- Mandatory Information -- Multiple Defendants -- Personal Questioning.
A trial Judge satisfies the burden of imparting the mandatory information, where two or more defendants are gathered to plead guilty, when he fully discusses the required rights with one of the defendants and then personally asks each defendant if he or she has heard the rights given and understands that they are being waived by a plea of guilty, but the Judge must personally question each individual defendant as to participation in the crime to which the plea is made.
2. -- Plea of Guilty -- Principals to Crime -- Aider and Abettor -- Statutes.
There is a factual basis to support a plea of guilty as a principal to attempted breaking and entering where the defendant states facts sufficient to support an inference of his guilt as an aider and abettor and, therefore, his liability as a principal (MCLA 767.39; MSA 28.979).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Jerome Hailey was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of attempted breaking and entering. Defendant appeals.
Defendant appeals from a plea based conviction of attempted breaking and entering. MCLA 750.92; MSA 28.287. His plea was taken with two codefendants. The trial Judge indicated that he would discuss the defendant's waiver of rights by questioning one of them in the presence of all three.
Defendant first contends that reversible error occurred when the trial Judge failed to repeat to him the rights as mandated by GCR 1963, 785.7. The trial Judge began by directing his questions to co-defendant Poole and stated:
"Excuse me, I am going to ask that Mr. Head and Mr. Hailey pay close attention to what I say to Miss Poole because the same identical questions relate to you. Then, I will not have to repeat everything three times."
The trial Judge asked if co-defendant Head had heard the questions and understood them. He then questioned Head about his part in the commission of the crime charged. The court engaged the defendant in the following colloquy: