People v. Ball

183 N.W.2d 903, 27 Mich. App. 500, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1376
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Ball. Read the opinion of the Court — 33 Mich. App. 288
Michigan Court of Appeals·Decided October 29, 1970·No. Docket No. 7,545·Published

Opinion

O’Hara, J.

The defendant, James Ball, appeals his conviction upon a plea of guilty of forging a check. MCLA § 750.248 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.445). The issues raised on appeal do not merit extended discussion.

The trial judge, during his examination of the defendant, advised him of the maximum sentence and established by direct questioning the essential elements of the offense, including that the defendant signed the name of the payee of a' check without authority with intent to injure or defraud. Before accepting the defendant’s plea and imposing sentence, the judge complied with the requirements of GCE 1963, 785.3 and MCLA §768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.1058).

Nothing has been adduced which would move us to hold that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

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

People v. Ball, 183 N.W.2d 903, 27 Mich. App. 500, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1376 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

183 N.W.2d 903 (People v. Ball) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 750.248
Michigan § 750.248
§ 768.35
Michigan § 768.35