People v. Drain

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Drain

180 N.W.2d 97, 24 Mich. App. 249, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1687

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 1970

DocketDocket 5,359

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 180 N.W.2d 97 (People v. Drain) 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. Drain, 180 N.W.2d 97, 24 Mich. App. 249, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1687 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Ronald C. Drain pled guilty and was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery, being armed, contrary to MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284). Subsequently, defendant appealed his conviction to this Court seeking the granting of a motion to remand cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, which was granted. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to set aside the guilty plea.

On appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty was induced by promises of leniency emanating from his trial counsel. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Our review of the plea transcript and the evidentiary hearing reveals that no prejudicial error was committed by the trial court and that the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.3(2) and MCLA § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058) were satisfied.

The trial court fully advised defendant of the consequences of his plea and queried defendant concerning any promises of leniency. Defendant stated unqualifiedly that he had not been promised leniency by anyone. Later allegations of leniency by defendant therefore, are without merit. People v. Shaffer (1966), 4 Mich App 192, 195; People v. Gant (1966), 4 Mich App 671, 675.

It is well settled that withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentence has been imposed rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Walls *251 (1966), 3 Mich App 279, 283. Moreover, it is the trial court who is best equipped to rule on whether or not a plea of guilty was induced by promises of leniency claimed to have been made to the defendant, when the trial court has held an evidentiary hearing on the matter and has had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the conflicting witnesses and determined their credibility. People v. Barnes (1968), 11 Mich App 455, 460. We find no abuse of discretion in the instant case. The question presented here on appeal is unsubstantial and requires no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the defendant’s conviction is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Ronald C. Drain pled guilty and was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery, being armed, contrary to MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284). Subsequently, defendant appealed his conviction to this Court seeking the granting of a motion to remand cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, which was granted. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to set aside the guilty plea.

On appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty was induced by promises of leniency emanating from his trial counsel. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Our review of the plea transcript and the evidentiary hearing reveals that no prejudicial error was committed by the trial court and that the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.3(2) and MCLA § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058) were satisfied.

The trial court fully advised defendant of the consequences of his plea and queried defendant concerning any promises of leniency. Defendant stated unqualifiedly that he had not been promised leniency by anyone. Later allegations of leniency by defendant therefore, are without merit. People v. Shaffer (1966), 4 Mich App 192, 195; People v. Gant (1966), 4 Mich App 671, 675.

It is well settled that withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentence has been imposed rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Walls *251 (1966), 3 Mich App 279, 283. Moreover, it is the trial court who is best equipped to rule on whether or not a plea of guilty was induced by promises of leniency claimed to have been made to the defendant, when the trial court has held an evidentiary hearing on the matter and has had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the conflicting witnesses and determined their credibility. People v. Barnes (1968), 11 Mich App 455, 460. We find no abuse of discretion in the instant case. The question presented here on appeal is unsubstantial and requires no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the defendant’s conviction is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 N.W.2d 97, 24 Mich. App. 249, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drain-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack