Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

PEOPLE v. MEDLEY

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence upon a plea of guilty of unarmed robbery. Defendant was originally charged with armed robbery. It was alleged that he assaulted one Eldred Monticello with a lug wrench and took about $8 and a gun from him. After a preliminary examination, trial was held at which a second count, of unarmed robbery, was added and to which defendant pled guilty. Defendant was later sentenced to serve ten to fifteen years imprisonment. His motion for a new trial was denied.

Defendant's first assignment of error is that the court below did not elicit sufficient facts from him to support a conviction for unarmed robbery and that therefore the plea was improperly taken. People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich. 267; People v. Richard E. Johnson (1967), 8 Mich. App. 204; People v. Perine (1967), 7 Mich. App. 292. While the judge below may not have elicited sufficient facts from the defendant at the guilty plea, there were sufficient facts revealed at the preliminary examination, People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich. App. 205, and at sentencing, People v. Minson (1970), 24 Mich. App. 692, to satisfy us that the elements of the crime and defendant's participation therein were established. This allegation of error is without merit.

Defendant's second assignment of error is that the Court below erred by not inquiring whether he had made an out-of-court confession and whether this influenced his plea as required by People v. Taylor (1968), 9 Mich. App. 333. People v. Taylor, supra, was overruled by our Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Taylor (1970), 383 Mich. 338. Furthermore, in People v. Kinsman (1970), 21 Mich. App. 242, 243, this Court specifically said:

"Presently, there is no requirement in guilty plea proceedings that the trial judge sua sponte inquire whether a defendant had previously given an out-of-court confession."

See also People v. Lucy (1970), 21 Mich. App. 252.

Accordingly, since neither of defendant's allegations of error are meritorious, his conviction must be affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. MEDLEY
(Oct 6, 1970)