PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged with two armed robberies, MCLA 750.529; MSA 28.797. On May 31, 1974, defendant entered a plea of guilty of unarmed robbery, MCLA 750.530; MSA 28.798, in both cases. Having been sentenced to concurrent terms of from 3 to 15 years in prison to run concurrently with his parole violation, defendant appeals.
During the plea proceedings, the following colloquy took place:
"The Court: I have in my possession two documents which are entitled `Guilty Plea' which purports to bear your signature. Tell the Court if that's your signature.
"Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: Have you read those documents, and do you understand them?
"Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: They explain to you your constitutional and statutory rights in this Court of the cases pending against you.
"Defendant: Yes, sir.
"The Court: And you formerly executed these documents, is that right?
"Defendant: Right."
GCR 1963, 785.7(1) provides that:
"The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first personally addressing the defendant and informing him of and determining that he understands the following: * * *"
The rule clearly requires the trial judge to personally advise defendant of his rights. People v Jones, 58 Mich. App. 231; 227 N.W.2d 297 (1975). The trial court, in this case, failed to adhere to this mandatory requirement. See People v Shekoski, 393 Mich. 134; 224 N.W.2d 656 (1974).
Reversed and remanded for new trial.