People v. Braziel

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Braziel

169 N.W.2d 513, 17 Mich. App. 411, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1220

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 1969

DocketDocket 7,210

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 169 N.W.2d 513 (People v. Braziel) 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. Braziel, 169 N.W.2d 513, 17 Mich. App. 411, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1220 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was arrested in Berrien county for the commission of a robbery in the State of Florida. The complaint and warrant charged *412 him with being a fugitive from justice. At arraignment he requested appointment of counsel, but the request was denied by the district judge. At a hearing before a Berrien county circuit judge the request was renewed. The court, in an order dated March 24,1969, denied the appointment of counsel “for reason that said appointment in extradition proceedings is not required in the State of Michigan.” Defendant brought the matter to our attention in an emergency application for leave to appeal from that order.

We are of the opinion that defendant, if indigent, is entitled to the appointment of assigned counsel, and that this result is required by § 10 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (MCLA § 780.9 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1285(9)]) for the reasons, which we hereby adopt, stated in People, ex rel. Harris, v. Ogilvie (1966), 35 Ill 2d 512 (221 NE2d 265) and Ex parte Turner (Tex Crim App, 1967), 410 SW2d 639, construing § 10 of that act.

Remanded to the trial court for a determination whether defendant is indigent and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was arrested in Berrien county for the commission of a robbery in the State of Florida. The complaint and warrant charged *412 him with being a fugitive from justice. At arraignment he requested appointment of counsel, but the request was denied by the district judge. At a hearing before a Berrien county circuit judge the request was renewed. The court, in an order dated March 24,1969, denied the appointment of counsel “for reason that said appointment in extradition proceedings is not required in the State of Michigan.” Defendant brought the matter to our attention in an emergency application for leave to appeal from that order.

We are of the opinion that defendant, if indigent, is entitled to the appointment of assigned counsel, and that this result is required by § 10 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (MCLA § 780.9 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1285(9)]) for the reasons, which we hereby adopt, stated in People, ex rel. Harris, v. Ogilvie (1966), 35 Ill 2d 512 (221 NE2d 265) and Ex parte Turner (Tex Crim App, 1967), 410 SW2d 639, construing § 10 of that act.

Remanded to the trial court for a determination whether defendant is indigent and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 N.W.2d 513, 17 Mich. App. 411, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-braziel-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack