People v. Morgan

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Morgan

184 N.W.2d 471, 28 Mich. App. 594, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1243

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1970

DocketDocket 9508

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 N.W.2d 471 (People v. Morgan) 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. Morgan, 184 N.W.2d 471, 28 Mich. App. 594, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1243 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was originally charged with armed robbery. In the presence of counsel, he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of assault with intent to rob while armed. On appeal he seeks to withdraw the plea claiming that the acceptance was invalid because of the failure of the trial judge to explain the differences between the elements of the offense originally charged and the offense to which he pleaded guilty. The people move to affirm.

No such explanation is required. GCR 1963, 785.3(2); People v. Torns (1970), 23 Mich App 238; People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205. It is not necessary that the record affirmatively show that the defendant was aware of the elements of the crimes. People v. Toms, supra; People v. Ferguson (1968), 13 Mich App 362.

Defendant also claims that the acceptance of his plea was invalid because the record does not affirmatively show that he drew the gun with which he was armed nor that his victims saw the gun before he took the money. At the time of defendant’s plea he testified that he was armed with a gun, *596 that he used the gun in committing the robbery, and that his victims saw the gun. There was ample testimony to show that defendant had committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty. MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284).

The trial judge did not err in accepting defendant’s plea of guilty. Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was originally charged with armed robbery. In the presence of counsel, he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of assault with intent to rob while armed. On appeal he seeks to withdraw the plea claiming that the acceptance was invalid because of the failure of the trial judge to explain the differences between the elements of the offense originally charged and the offense to which he pleaded guilty. The people move to affirm.

No such explanation is required. GCR 1963, 785.3(2); People v. Torns (1970), 23 Mich App 238; People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205. It is not necessary that the record affirmatively show that the defendant was aware of the elements of the crimes. People v. Toms, supra; People v. Ferguson (1968), 13 Mich App 362.

Defendant also claims that the acceptance of his plea was invalid because the record does not affirmatively show that he drew the gun with which he was armed nor that his victims saw the gun before he took the money. At the time of defendant’s plea he testified that he was armed with a gun, *596 that he used the gun in committing the robbery, and that his victims saw the gun. There was ample testimony to show that defendant had committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty. MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284).

The trial judge did not err in accepting defendant’s plea of guilty. Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.W.2d 471, 28 Mich. App. 594, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morgan-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack