People v. Fargo

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Fargo

23 Mich. App. 81

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 1970

DocketDocket No. 7,073

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 Mich. App. 81 (People v. Fargo) 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. Fargo, 23 Mich. App. 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is submitted on the people’s motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3). Represented by counsel, defendant pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle contrary to MCLA § 750.414 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.646). Following denial of his motion to withdraw the plea and vacate sentence, defendant appeals as of right.

Defendant argues that the trial court failed to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty whether he committed the offense charged. A review of the transcript reveals that the trial court fulfilled its responsibilities under GCR 1963, 785.3 (2). Moreover, it is well settled that a convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and he has the burden of showing something more than technical noncompliance with the court rules in order to vacate a guilty plea. People v. Nelson (1969), 18 Mich App 177.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

This case is submitted on the people’s motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3). Represented by counsel, defendant pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle contrary to MCLA § 750.414 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.646). Following denial of his motion to withdraw the plea and vacate sentence, defendant appeals as of right.

Defendant argues that the trial court failed to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty whether he committed the offense charged. A review of the transcript reveals that the trial court fulfilled its responsibilities under GCR 1963, 785.3 (2). Moreover, it is well settled that a convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and he has the burden of showing something more than technical noncompliance with the court rules in order to vacate a guilty plea. People v. Nelson (1969), 18 Mich App 177.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Mich. App. 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fargo-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack