People v. Dortch

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Dortch

184 N.W.2d 467, 28 Mich. App. 576, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1236

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1970

DocketDocket No. 9184

StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.W.2d 467 (People v. Dortch) 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. Dortch, 184 N.W.2d 467, 28 Mich. App. 576, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1236 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5 [3]) defendant’s conviction, on plea of guilty, of unauthorized taking and use of a motor vehicle without intent to steal, contrary to MCLA § 750.414 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.646).

The offense was committed while defendant was on probation in another case. On appeal, defendant contends that the proceedings against him in this [577]*577case amounted to probation revocation proceedings and that he was denied due process because those proceedings were not conducted with the procedural safeguards contained in MCLA § 771.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1134).

It is manifest that the question presented, on which decision of the cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. It is clear from the record that defendant’s unauthorized taking and use of the automobile of another was treated as a separate criminal offense and not as a probation violation. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to avail himself of the procedure set out in the statute for probation violation hearings. It is also clear from the record that the subject of defendant’s being on probation at the time this offense was committed did not arise until sentencing and then, at the instance of defense counsel. The court’s extended discussion of defendant’s failure to report pursuant to the existing probation order was necessitated by counsel’s suggestion that defendant be placed on probation.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5 [3]) defendant’s conviction, on plea of guilty, of unauthorized taking and use of a motor vehicle without intent to steal, contrary to MCLA § 750.414 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.646).

The offense was committed while defendant was on probation in another case. On appeal, defendant contends that the proceedings against him in this [577]*577case amounted to probation revocation proceedings and that he was denied due process because those proceedings were not conducted with the procedural safeguards contained in MCLA § 771.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1134).

It is manifest that the question presented, on which decision of the cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. It is clear from the record that defendant’s unauthorized taking and use of the automobile of another was treated as a separate criminal offense and not as a probation violation. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to avail himself of the procedure set out in the statute for probation violation hearings. It is also clear from the record that the subject of defendant’s being on probation at the time this offense was committed did not arise until sentencing and then, at the instance of defense counsel. The court’s extended discussion of defendant’s failure to report pursuant to the existing probation order was necessitated by counsel’s suggestion that defendant be placed on probation.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.W.2d 467, 28 Mich. App. 576, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dortch-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack