IN RE MARY ANGELA BEGLEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARY ANGELA BEGLEY,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 23, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 213120
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000617 NA
RICHARD BEGLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KATHRYN BRADY,
Respondent.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and MacKenzie and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a family court order of disposition directing that
the minor child be placed in the temporary custody of the family court and denying respondent
appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea of admission to allegations in the amended petition, pursuant to
which jurisdiction over the minor child was assumed. We affirm. This case is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
There is no absolute right to withdraw a plea once it is accepted. In re Zelzack, 180 Mich App
117, 126; 446 NW2d 588 (1989). A motion to withdraw a plea need not be granted where the
respondent’s stated reasons for removal are obviously frivolous. Id. The decision of the trial court on a
motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.
-1
We reject respondent-appellant's claim that he is entitled to withdraw his plea because he was
not represented by counsel. The right to counsel may be waived. MCR 5.915(B)(1)(c); In re Hall,
188 Mich App 217, 222; 469 NW2d 56 (1991). Here, the record reflects that the lower court clearly
advised respondent-appellant that he was entitled to an attorney, and also advised him (three times) that
he could request an attorney at any time. Respondent-appellant unequivocally stated that he wished to
represent himself, thereby effectively waiving his right to counsel.
We likewise reject respondent-appellant's argument that his plea was not knowingly,
understandingly, and voluntarily made. The family court clearly complied with MCR 5.971(C) in
accepting respondent-appellant's plea of admission. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the
plea was not voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly made. On the contrary, the record indicates
that respondent-appellant was fully informed of the allegations involved, his rights, the potential
consequences of waiving such rights, and the potential consequences of a plea. In addition, the family
court specifically inquired as to respondent-appellant’s state of mind, and whether he was under the
influence of any illegal drugs, alcohol, or prescriptive medication. The court further noted that, while
respondent-appellant had a history of substance abuse and mental health problems, it was apparent
when he tendered his plea that he was thinking clearly, and understood what he was doing. We
conclude that the family court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent-appellant’s motion to
withdraw his plea.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
