
    PEOPLE v DARRYL THOMAS
    Criminal Law — Guilty Plea — Court Rules — Advice to Dependant —Maximum Sentence.
    A trial judge is required by court rule to inform a defendant of the maximum sentence for the offense to which a guilty plea is offered; it was insufficient compliance with the court rule where an assistant prosecutor informed the defendant of the maximum sentence (GCR 1963, 785.7[1] [b]).
    Reference for Points in Headnote 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 534, 540.
    Appeal from Wayne, James N. Canham, J.
    Submitted Division 1 October 9, 1974, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 18589.)
    Decided January 29, 1975.
    Darryl M. Thomas was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of unarmed robbery. Defendant appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Arthur N Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Marshall S. Redman, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant.
    Before: Danhof, P. J., and Bronson and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

On July 2, 1973 defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of unarmed robbery, MCLA 750.530; MSA 28.798. The plea was accepted, and the defendant was sentenced to a term of 3 to 15 years in prison and he appeals as of right.

On appeal, defendant claims that the trial judge did not inform him of the maximum sentence for the offense to which the plea was offered as required by GCR 1963, 785.7(l)(b). An examination of the plea transcript substantiates this allegation, although we note from the plea transcript that the assistant prosecutor did state the maximum sentence. This, however, is insufficient compliance with the court rule. See People v Hubbard, 57 Mich App 542; 226 NW2d 557 (1975); People v Shekoski, 393 Mich 134; 224 NW2d 656 (1974).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.  