People v. Walton

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Walton

28 Mich. App. 608

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1970

DocketDocket No. 9846

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 Mich. App. 608 (People v. Walton) 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. Walton, 28 Mich. App. 608 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5 [3]) defendant’s conviction, on plea of guilty, of larceny from a person, contrary to MCLA § 750.357 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.589).

On appeal, defendant, a 20-year-old first offender at the time of this conviction, contends that the 7-1/2 to 10 year sentence imposed by the court violates the indeterminate sentence law, MCLA § 769.8 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1080).

This Court will not review a sentence which is within the maximum provided by statute, except in a clear case where the court has failed to exercise sound judicial discretion in setting a minimum sentence. People v. Lessard (1970), 22 Mich App 342. We find no abuse of discretion in this case. Certainly the sentence in this case, unlike the sentence in Lessard, permits the parole board to exercise its statutory discretion.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5 [3]) defendant’s conviction, on plea of guilty, of larceny from a person, contrary to MCLA § 750.357 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.589).

On appeal, defendant, a 20-year-old first offender at the time of this conviction, contends that the 7-1/2 to 10 year sentence imposed by the court violates the indeterminate sentence law, MCLA § 769.8 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1080).

This Court will not review a sentence which is within the maximum provided by statute, except in a clear case where the court has failed to exercise sound judicial discretion in setting a minimum sentence. People v. Lessard (1970), 22 Mich App 342. We find no abuse of discretion in this case. Certainly the sentence in this case, unlike the sentence in Lessard, permits the parole board to exercise its statutory discretion.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Mich. App. 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-walton-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack