People v. Bullock

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Bullock

255 N.W.2d 736, 75 Mich. App. 697, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 1151

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1977

DocketDocket No. 28278

StatusPublished

This text of 255 N.W.2d 736 (People v. Bullock) 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. Bullock, 255 N.W.2d 736, 75 Mich. App. 697, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 1151 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendant, originally charged with breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit larceny therein (MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305), proffered and the court accepted a reduced plea to attempted breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit larceny therein (MCLA 750.92; MSA 28.287, MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305). Following sentence, defendant appeals as of right.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether defendant was denied a reasonable opportunity to advise the court of any circumstances that he believed the court should consider in imposing sentence. GCR 1963, 785.8(2). We have examined the transcript of the plea proceeding which disclosed that defendant’s counsel spoke for and on behalf of the defendant at the time of sentencing. Counsel indicated that he had had a discussion with defendant and his mother and indicated to the court what the defendant’s thoughts were in [699]*699relation to the sentence. This is substantial compliance with the court rule.

Affirmed.

Beasley, P. J., concurred.

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

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendant, originally charged with breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit larceny therein (MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305), proffered and the court accepted a reduced plea to attempted breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit larceny therein (MCLA 750.92; MSA 28.287, MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305). Following sentence, defendant appeals as of right.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether defendant was denied a reasonable opportunity to advise the court of any circumstances that he believed the court should consider in imposing sentence. GCR 1963, 785.8(2). We have examined the transcript of the plea proceeding which disclosed that defendant’s counsel spoke for and on behalf of the defendant at the time of sentencing. Counsel indicated that he had had a discussion with defendant and his mother and indicated to the court what the defendant’s thoughts were in [699]*699relation to the sentence. This is substantial compliance with the court rule.

Affirmed.

Beasley, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 N.W.2d 736, 75 Mich. App. 697, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 1151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bullock-michctapp-1977.

Opinions

J. H. Gillis, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack