People v. Zazucki

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Zazucki

181 N.W.2d 648, 25 Mich. App. 657, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1632

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 3, 1970

DocketDocket No. 7,927

StatusPublished

This text of 181 N.W.2d 648 (People v. Zazucki) 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. Zazucki, 181 N.W.2d 648, 25 Mich. App. 657, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1632 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Eugene Zazucki pled guilty and was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery being armed, contrary to MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284).

On appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty was induced by promises of leniency, i.e., probation, emanating from his trial counsel and the trial judge. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Our review of the plea transcript reveals that no prejudicial error was committed by the trial court and that the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.3(2) and MCLA § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058) were satisfied. Defendant was adequately informed of the possible maximum sentence which he might receive upon conviction. The fact that a sentence of probation was mentioned by the trial court as statutorily permissible in this type of case does not, we think, in light of the entire plea transcript, render the guilty plea invalid. The question presented here on appeal is unsubstantial and requires no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the defendant’s conviction is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Eugene Zazucki pled guilty and was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery being armed, contrary to MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284).

On appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty was induced by promises of leniency, i.e., probation, emanating from his trial counsel and the trial judge. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Our review of the plea transcript reveals that no prejudicial error was committed by the trial court and that the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.3(2) and MCLA § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058) were satisfied. Defendant was adequately informed of the possible maximum sentence which he might receive upon conviction. The fact that a sentence of probation was mentioned by the trial court as statutorily permissible in this type of case does not, we think, in light of the entire plea transcript, render the guilty plea invalid. The question presented here on appeal is unsubstantial and requires no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the defendant’s conviction is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 648, 25 Mich. App. 657, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zazucki-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack