People v. Lee

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Lee

242 N.W.2d 518, 67 Mich. App. 755, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 1294

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 9, 1976

DocketDocket No. 25043

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 N.W.2d 518 (People v. Lee) 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. Lee, 242 N.W.2d 518, 67 Mich. App. 755, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 1294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals a plea-based conviction for assault with intent to rob while being armed, MCLA 750.89; MSA 28.284. The plea was accepted by the Detroit Recorder’s Court which subsequently sentenced defendant to a term of from 7 to 15 years in prison.

Defendant’s sole assertion of error on appeal is that the plea taking procedure was reversibly erroneous because the court did not inform defendant of his right to a speedy, public trial. We disagree. We do not wish to get involved in an argument involving the importance of the right to a speedy trial in relation to other constitutional rights. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has carefully established such a hierarchy, first in People v Rufus Williams, 386 Mich 277; 192 NW2d 466 (1971), and then in the promulgation of GCR 1963, 785.7(l)(d). That rule explicitly specified those rights which the court must tell the defendant he is waiving by pleading guilty. The right to a speedy, public trial is not among them.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals a plea-based conviction for assault with intent to rob while being armed, MCLA 750.89; MSA 28.284. The plea was accepted by the Detroit Recorder’s Court which subsequently sentenced defendant to a term of from 7 to 15 years in prison.

Defendant’s sole assertion of error on appeal is that the plea taking procedure was reversibly erroneous because the court did not inform defendant of his right to a speedy, public trial. We disagree. We do not wish to get involved in an argument involving the importance of the right to a speedy trial in relation to other constitutional rights. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has carefully established such a hierarchy, first in People v Rufus Williams, 386 Mich 277; 192 NW2d 466 (1971), and then in the promulgation of GCR 1963, 785.7(l)(d). That rule explicitly specified those rights which the court must tell the defendant he is waiving by pleading guilty. The right to a speedy, public trial is not among them.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 N.W.2d 518, 67 Mich. App. 755, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 1294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lee-michctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack