People v. Ferrall

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Ferrall

186 N.W.2d 3, 30 Mich. App. 231, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2204

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9597

StatusPublished

This text of 186 N.W.2d 3 (People v. Ferrall) 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. Ferrall, 186 N.W.2d 3, 30 Mich. App. 231, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2204 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of attempted possession of a narcotic drug, contrary to MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287), and MCLA § 335.153 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.1123). Following sentencing, defendant appealed as of right. The people have filed a motion to affirm. GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

[232]*232On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in accepting his plea because the plea was induced by the promises of his attorney and his own expectation that he would be treated for alleged drug addiction, rather than incarcerated as punishment for the commission of a crime. Defendant also contends, in effect, that the sentencing of a drug addict to prison for possession or attempted possession of narcotic drugs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Defendant may not assert for the first time on appeal that his plea was involuntary because induced by representations or promises of his attorney. People v. Kenny Smith (1969), 20 Mich App 307; People v. Dorner (1970), 24 Mich App 306; People v. Horvath (1970), 25 Mich App 649. The constitutional question will not be considered where it is raised for the first time on appeal.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of attempted possession of a narcotic drug, contrary to MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287), and MCLA § 335.153 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.1123). Following sentencing, defendant appealed as of right. The people have filed a motion to affirm. GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

[232]*232On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in accepting his plea because the plea was induced by the promises of his attorney and his own expectation that he would be treated for alleged drug addiction, rather than incarcerated as punishment for the commission of a crime. Defendant also contends, in effect, that the sentencing of a drug addict to prison for possession or attempted possession of narcotic drugs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Defendant may not assert for the first time on appeal that his plea was involuntary because induced by representations or promises of his attorney. People v. Kenny Smith (1969), 20 Mich App 307; People v. Dorner (1970), 24 Mich App 306; People v. Horvath (1970), 25 Mich App 649. The constitutional question will not be considered where it is raised for the first time on appeal.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.W.2d 3, 30 Mich. App. 231, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ferrall-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack