Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Holmes

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided December 18, 1989No. Docket 111068Published

1DissentMurphy, J.

Although defendant was charged with four separate crimes, a nolo contendere plea was offered on two of the crimes and accepted by the court because it was represented to the court that defendant had no memory of the events surrounding the charged crimes. Unlike a guilty plea where the defendant must present a factual recitation of the events to permit a trial court to accept the plea, the court in a nolo contendere plea is proscribed from asking the defendant about the alleged crime. MCR 6.101(F)(3)(b). The "factual basis” for the plea referred to in the majority opinion was provided in some…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. ZaleskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
  2. People v. BencheckMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  3. People v. MitchellMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
  4. People v. LewandowskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
  5. People v. PaulusMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API