People v. Patton

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Patton

181 N.W.2d 569, 25 Mich. App. 713

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 1977

DocketDocket 9,077

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 N.W.2d 569 (People v. Patton) 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. Patton, 181 N.W.2d 569, 25 Mich. App. 713 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Richard Lewis Patton pleaded guilty to possession of a narcotic drug eon *714 trary to MCLA § 335.153 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18-.1123). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea without having the preliminary examination transcript in the court file, even though defendant, represented by counsel, entered a waiver thereof. Defendant also argues that the trial court failed to question him in sufficient detail before accepting his guilty plea. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction, GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

It is well established that defendant, by electing to plead guilty, effectively waives all defects in the arraignment proceeding. People v. Robbins (1967), 6 Mich App 633; People v. Bess (1968), 11 Mich App 109. A review of the plea and sentencing transcripts reveals that the trial court fullv complied with the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.3“ and MCLA § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058). The questions presented here on appeal are unsubstantial and require no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the defendant’s conviction is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Richard Lewis Patton pleaded guilty to possession of a narcotic drug eon *714 trary to MCLA § 335.153 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18-.1123). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea without having the preliminary examination transcript in the court file, even though defendant, represented by counsel, entered a waiver thereof. Defendant also argues that the trial court failed to question him in sufficient detail before accepting his guilty plea. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction, GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

It is well established that defendant, by electing to plead guilty, effectively waives all defects in the arraignment proceeding. People v. Robbins (1967), 6 Mich App 633; People v. Bess (1968), 11 Mich App 109. A review of the plea and sentencing transcripts reveals that the trial court fullv complied with the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.3“ and MCLA § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058). The questions presented here on appeal are unsubstantial and require no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the defendant’s conviction is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 569, 25 Mich. App. 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-patton-michctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack