People v. Williams

172 N.W.2d 897, 19 Mich. App. 544

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Charles Williams pleaded guilty to the charge of assault with intent to rob being armed (CL 1948, §750.89 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284]). He was sentenced to a term of 25 to 35 years.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in considering defendant’s juvenile record before imposing sentence is without merit. That the trial judge may consider additional factors in determin ing sentence is well settled. People v. Williams (1923), 225 Mich 133; People v. Losinger (1951), 331 Mich 490; People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich 1; People v. Camak (1967), 5 Mich App 655. A convicted defendant’s juvenile record is a legitimate subject of inquiry, since it reflects upon defendant’s “antecedents, character and circumstances.” CL 1948, § 771.14 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1144). People v. Coleman (1969), 19 Mich App 250. Moreover, the restriction on the subsequent use of juvenile dispositions contained in CL 1948, § 712A.23 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3178(598.23)] does not bar post-conviction examination of juvenile records for the purpose of sentencing. People v. Coleman, supra. Nor was the failure of the trial judge to permit defendant to admit or deny the contents of the presentence report error. The record discloses no request by defendant or his counsel to examine the presentence report. People v. Camak, supra.

Defendant also contends that the sentence imposed was illegal. The claim is made that the sentence is, in effect, harsher than a life sentence,- since a life sentence might result in earlier parole. We find defendant’s sentence was within the limits prescribed by CL 1948, § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284). We find no reversible error in the punishment imposed. See People v. Harwood (1938), 286 Mich 96; People v. Connor (1957), 348 Mich 456; People v. Krum (1965), 374 Mich 356; People v. Mulier (1968), 12 Mich App 28.

Affirmed.