People v. McClain

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. McClain

181 N.W.2d 589, 25 Mich. App. 691, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1641

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 1970

DocketDocket 8,643

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 N.W.2d 589 (People v. McClain) 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. McClain, 181 N.W.2d 589, 25 Mich. App. 691, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the day of his trial for prison escape, * defendant requested a continuance, contending that the defense was not ready for trial, petitioned for another appointed attorney, and stated he was not ready to conduct his own defense. He gave no reason for this sudden change and would not elaborate.

The court made the following statement:

“Well, you will not tell me why. I cannot grant any motion on that basis without any basis for your motion. You just say you are not ready for trial, and don’t know how long this has been around— since April. No indication of any reason as to why you are not ready for trial. Been ample opportunity to prepare. The court will hear the case.”

The trial date was August 13, 1969. It is not a denial of defendant’s constitutional rights or an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge to deny adjournment where “the defendant fails to request an adjournment prior to the day of trial, particularly where he had some two and one-half months to obtain counsel”. People v. Clark (1968), *693 9 Mich App 602. See People v. Stinson (1967), 6 Mich App 648; People v. Gibbs (1970), 21 Mich App 137. No error or abuse of discretion is found where the defendant, as in the instant case, was dissatisfied with his appointed counsel and sought his dismissal at the outset of the trial and the request was denied. People v. Edwards (1969), 18 Mich App 526; People v. Miller (1970), 21 Mich App 113.

Trial testimony established that the defendant unlawfully left the Waterloo prison camp without permission. This is sufficient to constitute prison escape. Such evidence, if believed by the jury, supports the defendant’s conviction. An appellate court may not act as a reviewing jury on review of a criminal prosecution and may not disturb the jury’s findings of fact unless the evidence fails to support such findings. People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich App 103; People v. Heard (1969), 19 Mich App 516; People v. Ford (1969), 19 Mich App 519; People v. Mays (1969), 19 Mich App 588. Eeviewing the record, we find there was sufficient evidence, if believed, to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Bynum (1970), 21 Mich App 596, 602.

Affirmed.

*

CL 1948, § 750.193 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.390).

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

Per Curiam.

On the day of his trial for prison escape, * defendant requested a continuance, contending that the defense was not ready for trial, petitioned for another appointed attorney, and stated he was not ready to conduct his own defense. He gave no reason for this sudden change and would not elaborate.

The court made the following statement:

“Well, you will not tell me why. I cannot grant any motion on that basis without any basis for your motion. You just say you are not ready for trial, and don’t know how long this has been around— since April. No indication of any reason as to why you are not ready for trial. Been ample opportunity to prepare. The court will hear the case.”

The trial date was August 13, 1969. It is not a denial of defendant’s constitutional rights or an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge to deny adjournment where “the defendant fails to request an adjournment prior to the day of trial, particularly where he had some two and one-half months to obtain counsel”. People v. Clark (1968), *693 9 Mich App 602. See People v. Stinson (1967), 6 Mich App 648; People v. Gibbs (1970), 21 Mich App 137. No error or abuse of discretion is found where the defendant, as in the instant case, was dissatisfied with his appointed counsel and sought his dismissal at the outset of the trial and the request was denied. People v. Edwards (1969), 18 Mich App 526; People v. Miller (1970), 21 Mich App 113.

Trial testimony established that the defendant unlawfully left the Waterloo prison camp without permission. This is sufficient to constitute prison escape. Such evidence, if believed by the jury, supports the defendant’s conviction. An appellate court may not act as a reviewing jury on review of a criminal prosecution and may not disturb the jury’s findings of fact unless the evidence fails to support such findings. People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich App 103; People v. Heard (1969), 19 Mich App 516; People v. Ford (1969), 19 Mich App 519; People v. Mays (1969), 19 Mich App 588. Eeviewing the record, we find there was sufficient evidence, if believed, to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Bynum (1970), 21 Mich App 596, 602.

Affirmed.

*

CL 1948, § 750.193 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.390).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 589, 25 Mich. App. 691, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcclain-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack