People v. Peterson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Peterson

185 N.W.2d 915, 30 Mich. App. 215, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2199

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1971

DocketDocket 8771

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 185 N.W.2d 915 (People v. Peterson) 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. Peterson, 185 N.W.2d 915, 30 Mich. App. 215, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2199 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On January 8, 1968, defendant, while represented by counsel, pled guilty to the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. MOLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). On February 1, 1968, defendant was sentenced to a term of 8 to 10 years imprisonment. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate the sentence, withdraw the plea, and order a new trial.

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, it is contended that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to permit defendant, or his counsel, to examine the pre-sentence report. Secondly, it is contended that the trial court committed prejudicial error by accepting defendant’s plea of guilty.

As to the first issue, this Court has ruled previously on the issue of defendant’s right to review the pre-sentence report. People v. Camak (1967), 5 Mich App 655. The record in this case fails to disclose any request by defendant or his counsel to examine the pre-sentence report. People v. Camak, supra; People v. Charles Williams (1969), 19 Mich App 544.

It is well settled that the trial judge may consider defendant’s prior criminal record and other additional factors in determining sentence. MCLA § 771.14 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1144); People v. Charles Williams, supra; People v. Camak, supra.

As to the second assignment of error, defendant contends that his plea was induced by his attorney’s promise that the court would be lenient. Upon *217 entering the plea, the defendant assured the court that his plea was voluntary and that he had not been promised leniency by anyone. The record discloses nothing to persuade this Court that defendant’s present assertion that the plea was induced by promises of leniency should be considered more accurate than his original recollection. People v. Gant (1966), 4 Mich App 671, 675.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

On January 8, 1968, defendant, while represented by counsel, pled guilty to the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. MOLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). On February 1, 1968, defendant was sentenced to a term of 8 to 10 years imprisonment. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate the sentence, withdraw the plea, and order a new trial.

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, it is contended that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to permit defendant, or his counsel, to examine the pre-sentence report. Secondly, it is contended that the trial court committed prejudicial error by accepting defendant’s plea of guilty.

As to the first issue, this Court has ruled previously on the issue of defendant’s right to review the pre-sentence report. People v. Camak (1967), 5 Mich App 655. The record in this case fails to disclose any request by defendant or his counsel to examine the pre-sentence report. People v. Camak, supra; People v. Charles Williams (1969), 19 Mich App 544.

It is well settled that the trial judge may consider defendant’s prior criminal record and other additional factors in determining sentence. MCLA § 771.14 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1144); People v. Charles Williams, supra; People v. Camak, supra.

As to the second assignment of error, defendant contends that his plea was induced by his attorney’s promise that the court would be lenient. Upon *217 entering the plea, the defendant assured the court that his plea was voluntary and that he had not been promised leniency by anyone. The record discloses nothing to persuade this Court that defendant’s present assertion that the plea was induced by promises of leniency should be considered more accurate than his original recollection. People v. Gant (1966), 4 Mich App 671, 675.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.W.2d 915, 30 Mich. App. 215, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peterson-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack