People v. Hollingworth

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Hollingworth

183 N.W.2d 597, 27 Mich. App. 417, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1361

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1970

DocketDocket 9,772

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 N.W.2d 597 (People v. Hollingworth) 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. Hollingworth, 183 N.W.2d 597, 27 Mich. App. 417, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1361 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While represented by counsel defendant tendered a plea of guilty to attempted sale of a narcotic drug, a lesser included offense in count one of the information. 1 Upon defendant’s timely request appellate counsel was appointed on his behalf. A timely claim of appeal which was subsequently filed on behalf of the defendant raises one question for review. It is contended that the failure of the trial judge to examine the defendant as to the geographical location of the alleged crime, constitutes reversible error. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction on the grounds that the question presented for review is so unsubstantial as to warrant no argument or formal submission.

The information properly sets out the time and place of the crime for which defendant now stands convicted. Defendant does not dispute the accuracy of the information. He merely contends that his failure to recite these facts before the trial court during the time of the plea proceeding constitutes reversible error. This contention is fatuous.

“When an accused voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge set forth in the people’s information and his plea is accepted duly by the court, he admits the charge as laid, provides all evidence requisite to sentencing, and thereby waives all previously available objections to the proceedings which led up to and became merged in the legal result of his plea.” People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131, 141.

The motion to affirm is granted.

1

MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287), MCLA § 335.152 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.1122).

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

Per Curiam.

While represented by counsel defendant tendered a plea of guilty to attempted sale of a narcotic drug, a lesser included offense in count one of the information. 1 Upon defendant’s timely request appellate counsel was appointed on his behalf. A timely claim of appeal which was subsequently filed on behalf of the defendant raises one question for review. It is contended that the failure of the trial judge to examine the defendant as to the geographical location of the alleged crime, constitutes reversible error. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction on the grounds that the question presented for review is so unsubstantial as to warrant no argument or formal submission.

The information properly sets out the time and place of the crime for which defendant now stands convicted. Defendant does not dispute the accuracy of the information. He merely contends that his failure to recite these facts before the trial court during the time of the plea proceeding constitutes reversible error. This contention is fatuous.

“When an accused voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge set forth in the people’s information and his plea is accepted duly by the court, he admits the charge as laid, provides all evidence requisite to sentencing, and thereby waives all previously available objections to the proceedings which led up to and became merged in the legal result of his plea.” People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131, 141.

The motion to affirm is granted.

1

MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287), MCLA § 335.152 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.1122).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.W.2d 597, 27 Mich. App. 417, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hollingworth-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack