Defendant appeals from tbe trial court’s acceptance of bis guilty plea to attempted breaking and entering. MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287).

Tbe defendant gives two reasons wby his guilty plea was erroneously accepted. First, be alleges that tbe trial court failed to inform bim that be was waiving bis constitutional right against self-incrimination. Secondly, be contends that the court failed to elicit sufficient facts from bim to establish that tbe specific criminal acts charged bad been committed by tbe defendant.

Defendant’s reasons are not meritorious. There is no requirement compelling tbe trial judge to inform defendant that be is waiving certain constitutional rights. People v. Jaworski (1970), 25 Mich App 540. Basically, the only requirement prescribed by statute (MCLA § 768.35 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.1058]), court rule (GCR 1963, 785.3), and by long-established case authority (Kercheval v. United States [1927], 274 US 220 [47 S Ct 582, 71 L Ed 1009]; Chambers v. Florida [1940], 309 US 227 [60 S Ct 472, 84 L Ed 716]) is that the guilty plea be voluntarily and intelligently made by tbe defendant. Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 US 238 (89 S Ct 1709, 23 L Ed 2d 274). See also Brady v. United States (1970), 397 US 742 (90 S Ct 1463, 25 L Ed 2d 747).

*179 Upon examination of the record we discover the following. Defendant had benefit of competent counsel, admitted breaking into the building, denied that the plea was coerced in any way, was apprised of the consequences of his plea, and asserted that his plea was voluntarily made. The court did not err in accepting the unfettered choice of the defendant to plead guilty.

Affirmed.