People v. Wanzer

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Wanzer

193 N.W.2d 384, 36 Mich. App. 169, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1293

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 1971

DocketDocket 11039

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 N.W.2d 384 (People v. Wanzer) 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. Wanzer, 193 N.W.2d 384, 36 Mich. App. 169, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1293 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*170 Per Curiam.

The defendant and a codefendant were charged with forgery and uttering and publishing. On the day set for trial, the information was amended to add a third count of attempt to utter and publish, MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287) and MCLA § 750.259 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446), to which the defendant and his codefendant pled guilty. Three and one-half months after the sentencing the defendant filed a motion to withdraw the plea and his affidavit in support thereof. A hearing was held and the motion was denied.

The affidavit contained unspecific allegations and did not state facts, which if true, would substantiate the defendant’s claim that the plea was not freely and voluntarily and understanding^ made. People v. James Smith (1970), 27 Mich App 650 and People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719. Further, this Court is not impressed by the recanting statements of witnesses who claim they perjured themselves. People v. Jimmerson (1971), 30 Mich App 147.

The defendant was not denied an evidentiary hearing. Cf. People v. Doster (1970), 25 Mich App 169 and People v. Jones (1971), 385 Mich 288. Before denying the motion, the court commented on the fact that there was no other substantiating affidavit of any kind or any other evidence of any kind offered at the hearing. This Court will not consider the affidavit of the codefendant because it was not before the trial court. See People v. Barron (1970), 27 Mich App 379.

There was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying the motion to withdraw guilty plea. People v. Sylvester Johnson (1970), 25 Mich App 258. The issue raised is so unsubstantial as to require no argument or formal submission. The motion to affirm is granted.

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

*170 Per Curiam.

The defendant and a codefendant were charged with forgery and uttering and publishing. On the day set for trial, the information was amended to add a third count of attempt to utter and publish, MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287) and MCLA § 750.259 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446), to which the defendant and his codefendant pled guilty. Three and one-half months after the sentencing the defendant filed a motion to withdraw the plea and his affidavit in support thereof. A hearing was held and the motion was denied.

The affidavit contained unspecific allegations and did not state facts, which if true, would substantiate the defendant’s claim that the plea was not freely and voluntarily and understanding^ made. People v. James Smith (1970), 27 Mich App 650 and People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719. Further, this Court is not impressed by the recanting statements of witnesses who claim they perjured themselves. People v. Jimmerson (1971), 30 Mich App 147.

The defendant was not denied an evidentiary hearing. Cf. People v. Doster (1970), 25 Mich App 169 and People v. Jones (1971), 385 Mich 288. Before denying the motion, the court commented on the fact that there was no other substantiating affidavit of any kind or any other evidence of any kind offered at the hearing. This Court will not consider the affidavit of the codefendant because it was not before the trial court. See People v. Barron (1970), 27 Mich App 379.

There was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying the motion to withdraw guilty plea. People v. Sylvester Johnson (1970), 25 Mich App 258. The issue raised is so unsubstantial as to require no argument or formal submission. The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 N.W.2d 384, 36 Mich. App. 169, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wanzer-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack