People v. Graham

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Graham

181 N.W.2d 325, 25 Mich. App. 256, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1566

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 2, 1970

DocketDocket No. 8,870

StatusPublished

This text of 181 N.W.2d 325 (People v. Graham) 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. Graham, 181 N.W.2d 325, 25 Mich. App. 256, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1566 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Graham, while represented by counsel, was arraigned in the Kent County Circuit Court on the charge of entering without breaking contrary to MCLA § 750.111 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.306). He tendered a plea of guilty which was accepted by the court and he was subsequently sentenced to a term of 1-1/2 to 5 years imprisonment. A timely claim of appeal has been filed on his behalf by court-appointed appellate counsel, which is grounded solely on the contention [257]*257that the lower court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

Since the sentence is well within the statutory maximum any claim that it was too harsh or that the sentence constitutes a denial of equal protection is not reviewable. People v. Hunt (1969), 16 Mich App 664; People v. O’Den (1968), 15 Mich App 10. The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Graham, while represented by counsel, was arraigned in the Kent County Circuit Court on the charge of entering without breaking contrary to MCLA § 750.111 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.306). He tendered a plea of guilty which was accepted by the court and he was subsequently sentenced to a term of 1-1/2 to 5 years imprisonment. A timely claim of appeal has been filed on his behalf by court-appointed appellate counsel, which is grounded solely on the contention [257]*257that the lower court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

Since the sentence is well within the statutory maximum any claim that it was too harsh or that the sentence constitutes a denial of equal protection is not reviewable. People v. Hunt (1969), 16 Mich App 664; People v. O’Den (1968), 15 Mich App 10. The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 325, 25 Mich. App. 256, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-graham-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack