People v. Malkowski

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Malkowski

181 N.W.2d 6, 25 Mich. App. 195

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 18, 1970

DocketDocket 7,801

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 181 N.W.2d 6 (People v. Malkowski) 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. Malkowski, 181 N.W.2d 6, 25 Mich. App. 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, while represented by counsel, pleaded guilty, on April 8,1969, to an added count of unlawfully driving away an automobile. MCLA § 750.413 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.645). On April 10, 1969, he was sentenced to a term of two to five years imprisonment by Judge Thomas Roumell of the Wayne County Circuit Court. A timely claim of appeal has been filed by appointed appellate counsel raising two issues.

First, it is contended that the lower court failed to comply with the requirements of GrCR 1963, 785.3(2). Specifically, the record fails to demonstrate that the vehicle involved was one which belonged to another. Secondly, it is contended that the court erred in failing to allow defendant’s counsel to examine the presentence report.

The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

As to the first issue, a review of the record does indicate that the trial court complied with the requirements of GrCR 1963, 785.3(2) and therefore the defense’s argument is without merit. As to the second, this Court has ruled before on the availability of review of presentence reports. People v. Camak (1967), 5 Mich App 655; People v. Beard (1969), 17 Mich App 409; People v. Charles Williams (1969), 19 Mich App 544. Review of those reports is not of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court. Defendant has not shown an abuse of that discretion in the instant case.

For the reasons stated above, we grant the motion to affirm.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, while represented by counsel, pleaded guilty, on April 8,1969, to an added count of unlawfully driving away an automobile. MCLA § 750.413 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.645). On April 10, 1969, he was sentenced to a term of two to five years imprisonment by Judge Thomas Roumell of the Wayne County Circuit Court. A timely claim of appeal has been filed by appointed appellate counsel raising two issues.

First, it is contended that the lower court failed to comply with the requirements of GrCR 1963, 785.3(2). Specifically, the record fails to demonstrate that the vehicle involved was one which belonged to another. Secondly, it is contended that the court erred in failing to allow defendant’s counsel to examine the presentence report.

The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

As to the first issue, a review of the record does indicate that the trial court complied with the requirements of GrCR 1963, 785.3(2) and therefore the defense’s argument is without merit. As to the second, this Court has ruled before on the availability of review of presentence reports. People v. Camak (1967), 5 Mich App 655; People v. Beard (1969), 17 Mich App 409; People v. Charles Williams (1969), 19 Mich App 544. Review of those reports is not of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court. Defendant has not shown an abuse of that discretion in the instant case.

For the reasons stated above, we grant the motion to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 6, 25 Mich. App. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-malkowski-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack