People v. Candler

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Candler

188 N.W.2d 638, 32 Mich. App. 339, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1902

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9979

StatusPublished

This text of 188 N.W.2d 638 (People v. Candler) 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. Candler, 188 N.W.2d 638, 32 Mich. App. 339, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1902 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By his plea of guilty, defendant was convicted of attempted larceny in a building, MCLA § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592) and MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287), and was sentenced to a term of one to two years. On appeal, he contends that, in accepting his guilty plea, the trial [340]*340court erred in failing to: (1) ascertain defendant’s participation in the offense; (2) ascertain the truth of the plea; (3) inform defendant of the nature of the acccusation against him; and (4) inform defendant of the consequences of his plea.

After a careful review of the record in light of the requirements of GrCE. 1963, 785.3 and of the decisions in People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich 267; People v. Dunn (1968), 380 Mich 693; People v. Atkins (1966), 2 Mich App 199; People v. Leach (1966), 2 Mich App 713; and People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205, we find no reversible error. We are convinced that the defendant pled guilty because he was in fact guilty — that is our main concern. People v. Dunn, supra.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

By his plea of guilty, defendant was convicted of attempted larceny in a building, MCLA § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592) and MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287), and was sentenced to a term of one to two years. On appeal, he contends that, in accepting his guilty plea, the trial [340]*340court erred in failing to: (1) ascertain defendant’s participation in the offense; (2) ascertain the truth of the plea; (3) inform defendant of the nature of the acccusation against him; and (4) inform defendant of the consequences of his plea.

After a careful review of the record in light of the requirements of GrCE. 1963, 785.3 and of the decisions in People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich 267; People v. Dunn (1968), 380 Mich 693; People v. Atkins (1966), 2 Mich App 199; People v. Leach (1966), 2 Mich App 713; and People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205, we find no reversible error. We are convinced that the defendant pled guilty because he was in fact guilty — that is our main concern. People v. Dunn, supra.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 N.W.2d 638, 32 Mich. App. 339, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-candler-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack