People v. McCurtis

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. McCurtis

172 N.W.2d 510, 19 Mich. App. 353, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 955

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 1, 1969

DocketDocket 7,355

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 172 N.W.2d 510 (People v. McCurtis) 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. McCurtis, 172 N.W.2d 510, 19 Mich. App. 353, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 955 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree, CL 1948, § 750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548), and, after a preliminary examination, he was bound over to Recorder’s Court where he subsequently entered a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree, CL 1948, § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549). This timely claim of appeal is grounded on three contentions of error. First, the preliminary examination failed to establish corpus delicti. Second, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of CL 1948, § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058), the examination of defendant having failed to reveal all of the elements of the crime. Third, the trial court failed to conduct a separate hearing to determine the degree of the crime pursuant to CL 1948, § 750.318 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.550). The plaintiff has filed a motion to affirm the conviction.

*355 Alleged defects in the preliminary examination are waived upon the entry of a guilty plea. People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131. The trial court did examine the defendant as to the facts of the crime and his participation therein. People v. Stearns (1968), 380 Mich 704. “The prosecution is under no obligation to prove anything during the examination by the court of one seeking to plead guilty.” People v. Paul (1968), 13 Mich App 175, 177. Defendant does not contend that his plea was untruthful or involuntary. Pie does not assert his innocence.

“A convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. (Citations omitted.) He has the burden of showing something more than technical noncompliance with a rule. Absent a showing of violation or denial of constitutional rights, he has the obligation of alleging in a motion to withdraw plea such facts as would, if true, substantiate a finding that there was noncompliance which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719, 733.

Defendant specifically pled guilty to murder in the second degree and, therefore, no hearing was necessary to determine the degree of the crime. People v. Grillo (1948), 319 Mich 586; People v. Carl (1968), 11 Mich App 226.

The motion to affirm the conviction is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree, CL 1948, § 750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548), and, after a preliminary examination, he was bound over to Recorder’s Court where he subsequently entered a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree, CL 1948, § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549). This timely claim of appeal is grounded on three contentions of error. First, the preliminary examination failed to establish corpus delicti. Second, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of CL 1948, § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058), the examination of defendant having failed to reveal all of the elements of the crime. Third, the trial court failed to conduct a separate hearing to determine the degree of the crime pursuant to CL 1948, § 750.318 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.550). The plaintiff has filed a motion to affirm the conviction.

*355 Alleged defects in the preliminary examination are waived upon the entry of a guilty plea. People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131. The trial court did examine the defendant as to the facts of the crime and his participation therein. People v. Stearns (1968), 380 Mich 704. “The prosecution is under no obligation to prove anything during the examination by the court of one seeking to plead guilty.” People v. Paul (1968), 13 Mich App 175, 177. Defendant does not contend that his plea was untruthful or involuntary. Pie does not assert his innocence.

“A convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. (Citations omitted.) He has the burden of showing something more than technical noncompliance with a rule. Absent a showing of violation or denial of constitutional rights, he has the obligation of alleging in a motion to withdraw plea such facts as would, if true, substantiate a finding that there was noncompliance which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719, 733.

Defendant specifically pled guilty to murder in the second degree and, therefore, no hearing was necessary to determine the degree of the crime. People v. Grillo (1948), 319 Mich 586; People v. Carl (1968), 11 Mich App 226.

The motion to affirm the conviction is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.W.2d 510, 19 Mich. App. 353, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccurtis-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack