People v. Henson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Henson

171 N.W.2d 26, 18 Mich. App. 259, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1055

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1969

DocketDocket 5,996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 171 N.W.2d 26 (People v. Henson) 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. Henson, 171 N.W.2d 26, 18 Mich. App. 259, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1055 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, P. J.

On May 22, 1968, defendant pled guilty to the crime of uttering and publishing a check without having a cheeking account (CL 1948, § 750.131a [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.326(1)]) and subsequently was sentenced to serve one year and eleven months to two years. Prom this conviction and sentence defendant appeals:"

Defendant contends that it was reversible error for the court to have accepted his plea of guilty because it was induced by promises of medical treat *261 ment for alcoholism. The record is devoid of specific language establishing such a promise, although it does appear that the defendant told the prosecuting attorney that he would like treatment for his addiction to alcohol. This does not establish a basis for concluding that the prosecutor promised that defendant would get medical treatment if he pled guilty.

Defendant’s contention that there was no crime committed in that he was apprehended soon after he presented the check for cashing and before any money could be paid to him is without merit. See People v. Jacobson (1929), 248 Mich 639, 642.

Defendant’s final allegation that the court erred by accepting his plea knowing he had a reputation of being alcoholic, is equally without merit. There is no showing in this record that the defendant was intoxicated at the time the offense was committed so as to negate the requisite intent to defraud.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

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

J. H. Gillis, P. J.

On May 22, 1968, defendant pled guilty to the crime of uttering and publishing a check without having a cheeking account (CL 1948, § 750.131a [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.326(1)]) and subsequently was sentenced to serve one year and eleven months to two years. Prom this conviction and sentence defendant appeals:"

Defendant contends that it was reversible error for the court to have accepted his plea of guilty because it was induced by promises of medical treat *261 ment for alcoholism. The record is devoid of specific language establishing such a promise, although it does appear that the defendant told the prosecuting attorney that he would like treatment for his addiction to alcohol. This does not establish a basis for concluding that the prosecutor promised that defendant would get medical treatment if he pled guilty.

Defendant’s contention that there was no crime committed in that he was apprehended soon after he presented the check for cashing and before any money could be paid to him is without merit. See People v. Jacobson (1929), 248 Mich 639, 642.

Defendant’s final allegation that the court erred by accepting his plea knowing he had a reputation of being alcoholic, is equally without merit. There is no showing in this record that the defendant was intoxicated at the time the offense was committed so as to negate the requisite intent to defraud.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 N.W.2d 26, 18 Mich. App. 259, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henson-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, P. J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack