People v. Miles

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Miles

184 N.W.2d 507, 28 Mich. App. 562, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1231

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1970

DocketDocket 9016

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 184 N.W.2d 507 (People v. Miles) 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. Miles, 184 N.W.2d 507, 28 Mich. App. 562, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1231 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5[3]) defendant’s conviction, on his plea of guilty, of armed robbery contrary to MOLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.797).

It is manifest from an examination of the record that the question sought to be appealed, on which decision of this cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 US 238 (89 S Ct 1709, 23 L Ed 2d 274) does not require the specific enumeration and waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury and the right to confront one’s accusers. People v. Sepulvado (1970), 27 Mich App 66. Defendant’s reference at the arraignment proceedings to the fact that he was “on the habit of narcotics” is not sufficient to establish that defendant was under the influence of narcotics and unable to form a specific intent. See People v. Spencer (1970), 23 Mich App 56. The bare suggestion of narcotics intoxication is not sufficient basis for a remand for an evidentiary hearing, especially where, as here, defendant did not allege below and does not allege here that he was in fact *564 under the influence of narcotics and unable to form the specific intent. Finally, there was no necessity for the court to advise defendant of the possibility of a mandatory minimum sentence under the armed-robbery statute where neither defendant nor his accomplice assaulted or injured anyone during the commission of the robbery.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5[3]) defendant’s conviction, on his plea of guilty, of armed robbery contrary to MOLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.797).

It is manifest from an examination of the record that the question sought to be appealed, on which decision of this cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 US 238 (89 S Ct 1709, 23 L Ed 2d 274) does not require the specific enumeration and waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury and the right to confront one’s accusers. People v. Sepulvado (1970), 27 Mich App 66. Defendant’s reference at the arraignment proceedings to the fact that he was “on the habit of narcotics” is not sufficient to establish that defendant was under the influence of narcotics and unable to form a specific intent. See People v. Spencer (1970), 23 Mich App 56. The bare suggestion of narcotics intoxication is not sufficient basis for a remand for an evidentiary hearing, especially where, as here, defendant did not allege below and does not allege here that he was in fact *564 under the influence of narcotics and unable to form the specific intent. Finally, there was no necessity for the court to advise defendant of the possibility of a mandatory minimum sentence under the armed-robbery statute where neither defendant nor his accomplice assaulted or injured anyone during the commission of the robbery.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.W.2d 507, 28 Mich. App. 562, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miles-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack