People v. Paintman

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Paintman

184 N.W.2d 458, 28 Mich. App. 590, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1241

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1970

DocketDocket 9450

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 184 N.W.2d 458 (People v. Paintman) 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. Paintman, 184 N.W.2d 458, 28 Mich. App. 590, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

*591 Pee Cubiam.

Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted on the charge of breaking and entering a business place with intent to commit larceny contrary to MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). On April 7, 1970 he was sentenced by Judge Joseph Gillis of the recorder’s court to a term of eight to ten years imprisonment. With the assistance of court appointed appellate counsel a timely claim of appeal presents a single question for review. It is defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

An examination of the record reveals that at no time has the defendant attempted to seek review in the lower court of his contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is not properly preserved for review in this Court:

. “An objection going to the weight of the evidence can be raised only by a motion for a new trial. On appeal, we review a denial for abuse of discretion. Here, no motion for a new trial was filed. The trial judge’s discretion was, therefore, not invoked.” People v. Mattison, 26 Mich App 453.

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

*591 Pee Cubiam.

Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted on the charge of breaking and entering a business place with intent to commit larceny contrary to MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). On April 7, 1970 he was sentenced by Judge Joseph Gillis of the recorder’s court to a term of eight to ten years imprisonment. With the assistance of court appointed appellate counsel a timely claim of appeal presents a single question for review. It is defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction and sentence.

An examination of the record reveals that at no time has the defendant attempted to seek review in the lower court of his contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is not properly preserved for review in this Court:

. “An objection going to the weight of the evidence can be raised only by a motion for a new trial. On appeal, we review a denial for abuse of discretion. Here, no motion for a new trial was filed. The trial judge’s discretion was, therefore, not invoked.” People v. Mattison, 26 Mich App 453.

Motion to affirm the conviction and sentence is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.W.2d 458, 28 Mich. App. 590, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paintman-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack