People v. Hatfield

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Hatfield

30 Mich. App. 258

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 1971

DocketDocket No. 10163

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 Mich. App. 258 (People v. Hatfield) 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. Hatfield, 30 Mich. App. 258 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from his conviction upon a plea of guilty to the offense of breaking and entering an office building with intent to commit larceny. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). Since that was the crime with which he was originally charged, he now claims that the trial judge was obligated to conduct an extraordinary examination under CCR1963, 785.3 (2) to ascertain why defendant was pleading guilty without obtaining some concession from the prosecutor. The people have submitted a motion to affirm his conviction.

The plea transcript discloses that defendant was represented by counsel at the time he entered his plea, that he denied the presence of any promises or threats, and that he affirmatively expressed a desire to plead guilty to the offense with which he was charged. Upon these facts, it is manifest that the issue defendant presents is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

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 appeals from his conviction upon a plea of guilty to the offense of breaking and entering an office building with intent to commit larceny. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). Since that was the crime with which he was originally charged, he now claims that the trial judge was obligated to conduct an extraordinary examination under CCR1963, 785.3 (2) to ascertain why defendant was pleading guilty without obtaining some concession from the prosecutor. The people have submitted a motion to affirm his conviction.

The plea transcript discloses that defendant was represented by counsel at the time he entered his plea, that he denied the presence of any promises or threats, and that he affirmatively expressed a desire to plead guilty to the offense with which he was charged. Upon these facts, it is manifest that the issue defendant presents is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Mich. App. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hatfield-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack