People v. McGown

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. McGown

172 N.W.2d 873, 19 Mich. App. 580, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1001

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 1969

DocketDocket 7,117

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 172 N.W.2d 873 (People v. McGown) 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. McGown, 172 N.W.2d 873, 19 Mich. App. 580, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1001 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, while represented by counsel, pled guilty to the charge of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, contrary to CL 1948, *581 § 750.110, as amended by PA 1964, No 133 (Stat Ann 1968 Cnm Snpp § 28.305). He was subsequently sentenced to a term of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment. A timely claim of appeal was filed in this Court and grounded on three allegations of error. It is contended that the transcript fails to reveal a forceful breaking, a necessary element to the offense charged, and further, that each element of the crime must be demonstrated at the plea proceeding. The second contention of error is that the sentence, although set within the statutory limits, was too severe. The third error asserted is that the trial court erroneously relied upon some inaccurate information concerning defendant’s prior criminal record at the sentence proceeding. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

An examination of the transcript clearly demonstrates the existence of a forceful breaking. The remaining two issues, although stated in brief, are not briefed and are, therefore, considered abandoned. People v. Rogers (1968), 10 Mich App 380.

It is manifest that the questions presented herein are unsubstantial and, therefore, require no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the conviction and sentence is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, while represented by counsel, pled guilty to the charge of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, contrary to CL 1948, *581 § 750.110, as amended by PA 1964, No 133 (Stat Ann 1968 Cnm Snpp § 28.305). He was subsequently sentenced to a term of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment. A timely claim of appeal was filed in this Court and grounded on three allegations of error. It is contended that the transcript fails to reveal a forceful breaking, a necessary element to the offense charged, and further, that each element of the crime must be demonstrated at the plea proceeding. The second contention of error is that the sentence, although set within the statutory limits, was too severe. The third error asserted is that the trial court erroneously relied upon some inaccurate information concerning defendant’s prior criminal record at the sentence proceeding. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

An examination of the transcript clearly demonstrates the existence of a forceful breaking. The remaining two issues, although stated in brief, are not briefed and are, therefore, considered abandoned. People v. Rogers (1968), 10 Mich App 380.

It is manifest that the questions presented herein are unsubstantial and, therefore, require no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the conviction and sentence is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.W.2d 873, 19 Mich. App. 580, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcgown-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack