People v. Allen

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Allen

31 Mich. App. 183

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 25, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9562

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 Mich. App. 183 (People v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Allen, 31 Mich. App. 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant pleaded guilty to tbe offense of murder in tbe second degree, contrary to [184]*184MOLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549), and was sentenced to a 20 to 40 year prison term. His appeal as of right from that conviction and sentence is met by a motion to affirm. GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendant argues on appeal that the court should not have accepted his guilty plea because he did not admit in his own words the existence of all of the elements of the crime. It is manifest that the questions sought to be reviewed, on which decision of the cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. A proper plea of guilty does not require that defendant establish each and every element of the offense by his testimony. People v. Reid (1970), 27 Mich App 415; People v. Donald T. Moore (1970), 21 Mich App 150; People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205. A review of the record in this case establishes that there was a substantial factual basis for defendant’s plea.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant pleaded guilty to tbe offense of murder in tbe second degree, contrary to [184]*184MOLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549), and was sentenced to a 20 to 40 year prison term. His appeal as of right from that conviction and sentence is met by a motion to affirm. GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendant argues on appeal that the court should not have accepted his guilty plea because he did not admit in his own words the existence of all of the elements of the crime. It is manifest that the questions sought to be reviewed, on which decision of the cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. A proper plea of guilty does not require that defendant establish each and every element of the offense by his testimony. People v. Reid (1970), 27 Mich App 415; People v. Donald T. Moore (1970), 21 Mich App 150; People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205. A review of the record in this case establishes that there was a substantial factual basis for defendant’s plea.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Mich. App. 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allen-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack