People v. Loukas

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Loukas

174 N.W.2d 923, 21 Mich. App. 118, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2045

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 1970

DocketDocket No. 5,930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 N.W.2d 923 (People v. Loukas) 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. Loukas, 174 N.W.2d 923, 21 Mich. App. 118, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2045 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The issue on this appeal, which is from defendant’s conviction and sentence for receiving and concealing stolen property over the value of $100,

* is stated by defendant as: “Was the defendant denied the effective representation of counsel at his trial in this cause?”

The basis for defendant’s contention that he was denied effective representation by trial counsel is that failure of trial counsel to object to the admission in evidence of the stolen property on the strength of an alleged illegal search and seizure resulted in defendant’s conviction. This Court has recently decided that such a contention is not the basis for holding that a defendant is denied the effective assistance of counsel in the constitutional sense. See People v. Degraffenreid (1969), 19 Mich App 702.

Defendant’s reliance on People v. Ibarra (1963), 60 Cal 2d 460 (386 P2d 487, 34 Cal Rptr 863), is misplaced. The property there seized was the product of warrantless arrest and a warrantless search. In the present case, defendant was arrested on a valid warrant and the stolen property was found in the automobile occupied by him at the time of arrest and search.

Affirmed.

MCLA § 750.535 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp §28.803).

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

Per Curiam.

The issue on this appeal, which is from defendant’s conviction and sentence for receiving and concealing stolen property over the value of $100,

* is stated by defendant as: “Was the defendant denied the effective representation of counsel at his trial in this cause?”

The basis for defendant’s contention that he was denied effective representation by trial counsel is that failure of trial counsel to object to the admission in evidence of the stolen property on the strength of an alleged illegal search and seizure resulted in defendant’s conviction. This Court has recently decided that such a contention is not the basis for holding that a defendant is denied the effective assistance of counsel in the constitutional sense. See People v. Degraffenreid (1969), 19 Mich App 702.

Defendant’s reliance on People v. Ibarra (1963), 60 Cal 2d 460 (386 P2d 487, 34 Cal Rptr 863), is misplaced. The property there seized was the product of warrantless arrest and a warrantless search. In the present case, defendant was arrested on a valid warrant and the stolen property was found in the automobile occupied by him at the time of arrest and search.

Affirmed.

MCLA § 750.535 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp §28.803).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 N.W.2d 923, 21 Mich. App. 118, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-loukas-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack