¶1(concurring in result). I concur in the result reached by Judge Allen largely because, in all honesty, I cannot, in my own mind, satisfactorily reconcile the seeming command of GCR 1963, 785.7, as interpreted by People v Shekoski, 393 Mich 134; 224 NW2d 656 (1974), and the disposition which the Supreme Court has made in the case of People v Dailey, 392 Mich 757 (1974).
¶2I cannot possibly reconcile a court rule which by *60Shekoskitells us there is no such thing as "substantial compliance”, and that GCR 1963, 785.7 must be followed literally, with the procedure adopted by the Court in Dailey, supra, wherein it remanded for a hearing to establish the factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere.
¶3I have sought faithfully to comply with the directions of this state’s highest court with respect to cases arising under GCR 1963, 785.7 and have with recorded reluctance written to set aside pleas which the court rule and Shekoskiapparently mandated. See People v King, 57 Mich App 514; 226 NW2d 544 (1975).
¶4In finality, I concur with the remand espoused in my colleague’s opinion as reflecting a permissible procedure under the authority of Dailey.