People v. Colton

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Colton

192 N.W.2d 647, 35 Mich. App. 602

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 26, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9873

StatusPublished

This text of 192 N.W.2d 647 (People v. Colton) 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. Colton, 192 N.W.2d 647, 35 Mich. App. 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant was charged with robbery armed. MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.797). He was convicted by a jury of robbery unarmed. MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798). He was sentenced to a term of 10 to 15 years in prison.

[603]*603The defendant contends that his oral confession was improperly admitted into evidence, because before he made it he was advised that any statements “can be used” instead of “can and will be used” against you. This issue has been decided adversely to the defendant’s position in People v. Ruppuhn (1970), 25 Mich App 62. The question sought to be reviewed is so unsubstantial that no argument or formal submission is needed.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant was charged with robbery armed. MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.797). He was convicted by a jury of robbery unarmed. MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798). He was sentenced to a term of 10 to 15 years in prison.

[603]*603The defendant contends that his oral confession was improperly admitted into evidence, because before he made it he was advised that any statements “can be used” instead of “can and will be used” against you. This issue has been decided adversely to the defendant’s position in People v. Ruppuhn (1970), 25 Mich App 62. The question sought to be reviewed is so unsubstantial that no argument or formal submission is needed.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.W.2d 647, 35 Mich. App. 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colton-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack