People v. Whitmer

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Whitmer

181 N.W.2d 77, 25 Mich. App. 209, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1551

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1970

DocketDocket No. 8,026

StatusPublished

This text of 181 N.W.2d 77 (People v. Whitmer) 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. Whitmer, 181 N.W.2d 77, 25 Mich. App. 209, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1551 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On September 1, 1967, defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.797). Defendant filed a motion which the trial court construed as a delayed motion for new trial and from a denial of the motion, defendant appeals.

[210]*210Defendant contends initially that his representation by court-appointed counsel was ineffective. While defendant alleges that he was not afforded an opportunity to consult privately with his counsel, in its opinion denying defendant’s motion for new trial, the trial court stated that “defense counsel displayed a diligent effort to defend the accused, and appeared to be well informed of the facts of the case”. We find nothing in the record to support a finding that in so ruling the trial court erred. See People v. Crawford (1969), 16 Mich App 92.

Defendant’s additional allegations of error are without merit.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

On September 1, 1967, defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.797). Defendant filed a motion which the trial court construed as a delayed motion for new trial and from a denial of the motion, defendant appeals.

[210]*210Defendant contends initially that his representation by court-appointed counsel was ineffective. While defendant alleges that he was not afforded an opportunity to consult privately with his counsel, in its opinion denying defendant’s motion for new trial, the trial court stated that “defense counsel displayed a diligent effort to defend the accused, and appeared to be well informed of the facts of the case”. We find nothing in the record to support a finding that in so ruling the trial court erred. See People v. Crawford (1969), 16 Mich App 92.

Defendant’s additional allegations of error are without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 77, 25 Mich. App. 209, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whitmer-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack