Defendant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering in the night time. OL 1948, § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.305). The crime was committed on September 15, 1963. On appeal he claims *407that he was denied the assistance of counsel as he did not expressly waive his right to have counsel appointed for him.

During the arraignment the following colloquy took place:

“The Court: I must advise you that you are * * * entitled to he represented by a lawyer, if you want one, preferably one of your own choosing if you can retain one. On the other hand, if you wish a lawyer and cannot retain one, the court will appoint a lawyer for you upon a proper showing. Do you understand those rights?

“Defendant: Yes, sir.

“The Court: Bight to a lawyer and right to a jury trial. You also have a right to plead guilty or not guilty, as the case may he, to this charge. With that explanation of your rights, what do you wish to do?

“Defendant: I plead guilty.”

The above exchange is almost identical to the crucial portion of the arraignment in People v. Hobdy (1968), 380 Mich 686. In Hobdy the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of conviction entered on a plea of guilty by holding that Michigan and Federal authorities do not require that there he any express waiver of counsel.

Affirmed.