People v. Barry

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Barry

178 N.W.2d 129, 23 Mich. App. 121, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1814

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1970

DocketDocket 7,646

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 178 N.W.2d 129 (People v. Barry) 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. Barry, 178 N.W.2d 129, 23 Mich. App. 121, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1814 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to the offense of using and displaying an operator’s license issued to another. (MCLA § 257.324 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2024]). The trial judge accepted defendant’s plea of guilty to this simple misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to 30 days in the Detroit House of Correction and $150 costs or an additional 15 days in the House of Correction. (MCLA § 257.901 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2601]).

Following the filing of defendant’s appellate brief, the people filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendant claims that the trial court was under an obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if defendant’s plea was made> freely with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence. Although a trial judge is clearly under an obligation in accepting a guilty plea to comply with the respective court rule (GCR 1963, 785.3) and statutory provision (MCLA § 768-.35 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058]) in felony cases and circuit court misdemeanors, such responsibility does not extend to simple misdemeanors. A review of the record reinforces our belief that defendant’s argument lacks merit.

It is therefore the holding of this Court that the question sought to be reviewed, on which decision of this cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to the offense of using and displaying an operator’s license issued to another. (MCLA § 257.324 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2024]). The trial judge accepted defendant’s plea of guilty to this simple misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to 30 days in the Detroit House of Correction and $150 costs or an additional 15 days in the House of Correction. (MCLA § 257.901 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2601]).

Following the filing of defendant’s appellate brief, the people filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendant claims that the trial court was under an obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if defendant’s plea was made> freely with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence. Although a trial judge is clearly under an obligation in accepting a guilty plea to comply with the respective court rule (GCR 1963, 785.3) and statutory provision (MCLA § 768-.35 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058]) in felony cases and circuit court misdemeanors, such responsibility does not extend to simple misdemeanors. A review of the record reinforces our belief that defendant’s argument lacks merit.

It is therefore the holding of this Court that the question sought to be reviewed, on which decision of this cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.W.2d 129, 23 Mich. App. 121, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barry-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack