People v. STANLEY WILLIAMS

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. STANLEY WILLIAMS

341 N.W.2d 854, 129 Mich. App. 648

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 1983

DocketDocket 66546

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 341 N.W.2d 854 (People v. STANLEY WILLIAMS) 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. STANLEY WILLIAMS, 341 N.W.2d 854, 129 Mich. App. 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, but mentally ill. Thereafter sentenced to 9 to 15 years imprisonment, defendant appeals as of right.

Defendant first claims that, in accepting his plea of guilty but mentally ill, the trial court was required to make a specific finding that he was not insane. We disagree. We hold that the trial court was not required to make a specific finding of insanity where that issue was never raised by defendant in compliance with MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1).

Second, defendant claims the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty but mentally ill in the absence of reports required by MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Defendant’s claim is without merit. Defendant never filed a notice of his intention to assert the defense of insanity pursuant to § 20a. Therefore, the provisions of § 20a are inapplicable herein. Defendant’s reliance on MCL 768.36; MSA 28.1059 is misplaced since said statute is confined to the situation where "the defendant asserts a defense of insanity in compliance with section 20a”. We hold defendant’s plea was properly accepted.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, but mentally ill. Thereafter sentenced to 9 to 15 years imprisonment, defendant appeals as of right.

Defendant first claims that, in accepting his plea of guilty but mentally ill, the trial court was required to make a specific finding that he was not insane. We disagree. We hold that the trial court was not required to make a specific finding of insanity where that issue was never raised by defendant in compliance with MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1).

Second, defendant claims the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty but mentally ill in the absence of reports required by MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Defendant’s claim is without merit. Defendant never filed a notice of his intention to assert the defense of insanity pursuant to § 20a. Therefore, the provisions of § 20a are inapplicable herein. Defendant’s reliance on MCL 768.36; MSA 28.1059 is misplaced since said statute is confined to the situation where "the defendant asserts a defense of insanity in compliance with section 20a”. We hold defendant’s plea was properly accepted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 N.W.2d 854, 129 Mich. App. 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stanley-williams-michctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack