People v. Militello

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Militello

189 N.W.2d 838, 33 Mich. App. 93, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1705

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1971

DocketDocket 8375

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 N.W.2d 838 (People v. Militello) 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. Militello, 189 N.W.2d 838, 33 Mich. App. 93, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1705 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Lesinski, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of extortion, contrary to MOLA § 750.213 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.410). The people have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and to assess damages pursuant to GCR 1963, 816.5 on the alleged grounds that this is a vexatious proceeding because taken “without any reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal”. The people also move to strike the statement of facts in appellant’s brief because it allegedly violates the requirements of GCR 1963, 813.2(3).

Because of the constitutional rights to an appeal and to the assistance of counsel on that appeal and the obligation of court-appointed counsel to pursue an appeal as an active advocate for his client, we prefer to treat the people’s motion to dismiss under GCR 1963, 816.5 as a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3). Thus, we have considered the merits of the issue raised on appeal even though we agree with appellee that the statement of facts in appellant’s brief is biased and misleading.

It is manifest that the issue raised, on which decision of the cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. The threats of harm to complainant’s person, property, and family in this case were sufficiently real and specific to be prosecuted under the statute.

Motion to affirm is granted.

All concurred.

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

Lesinski, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of extortion, contrary to MOLA § 750.213 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.410). The people have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and to assess damages pursuant to GCR 1963, 816.5 on the alleged grounds that this is a vexatious proceeding because taken “without any reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal”. The people also move to strike the statement of facts in appellant’s brief because it allegedly violates the requirements of GCR 1963, 813.2(3).

Because of the constitutional rights to an appeal and to the assistance of counsel on that appeal and the obligation of court-appointed counsel to pursue an appeal as an active advocate for his client, we prefer to treat the people’s motion to dismiss under GCR 1963, 816.5 as a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3). Thus, we have considered the merits of the issue raised on appeal even though we agree with appellee that the statement of facts in appellant’s brief is biased and misleading.

It is manifest that the issue raised, on which decision of the cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. The threats of harm to complainant’s person, property, and family in this case were sufficiently real and specific to be prosecuted under the statute.

Motion to affirm is granted.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 N.W.2d 838, 33 Mich. App. 93, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-militello-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack