People v. Blair

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Blair

162 N.W.2d 112, 11 Mich. App. 649, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1354

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 1968

DocketDocket 4,228

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 N.W.2d 112 (People v. Blair) 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. Blair, 162 N.W.2d 112, 11 Mich. App. 649, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1354 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals bis nonjury conviction and sentence for larceny in a store. * He asserts as basis for appellate relief 2 claims, namely: the evidence introduced against him did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and his constitutional rights were yiolated when he was sentenced by a judge who had disqualified himself from trying-defendant because that.judge was convinced before the trial of defendant’s guilt and the record fails to disclose the unavailability of the trial judge for sentencing.

Appointed defense counsel, Alexander M. Des Chenes, Jr., has done a creditable job in presenting this appeal, but a review of the trial transcript discloses ample evidence, which, if believed by the trier *651 of the fact, establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant raised no objection to being sentenced, by Judge Martin, who bad disqualified himself. As-pointed out in People v. McKinley (1966), 5 Mich App 230, the right to be sentenced by the trial judge’ is a personal right, subject to waiver. That right was waived here.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.

*

OL 1948, § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592).

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals bis nonjury conviction and sentence for larceny in a store. * He asserts as basis for appellate relief 2 claims, namely: the evidence introduced against him did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and his constitutional rights were yiolated when he was sentenced by a judge who had disqualified himself from trying-defendant because that.judge was convinced before the trial of defendant’s guilt and the record fails to disclose the unavailability of the trial judge for sentencing.

Appointed defense counsel, Alexander M. Des Chenes, Jr., has done a creditable job in presenting this appeal, but a review of the trial transcript discloses ample evidence, which, if believed by the trier *651 of the fact, establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant raised no objection to being sentenced, by Judge Martin, who bad disqualified himself. As-pointed out in People v. McKinley (1966), 5 Mich App 230, the right to be sentenced by the trial judge’ is a personal right, subject to waiver. That right was waived here.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.

*

OL 1948, § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 N.W.2d 112, 11 Mich. App. 649, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blair-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack