From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Barry

Michigan Court of Appeals
Mar 31, 1970
23 Mich. App. 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

Docket No. 7,646.

Decided March 31, 1970.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Traffic and Ordinance Division, Andrew C. Wood, J. Submitted Division 2 March 3, 1970, at Lansing. (Docket No. 7,646.) Decided March 31, 1970.

Steve C. Barry was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of using and displaying an operator's license issued to another. Defendant appeals. People's motion to affirm granted.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Tauber Garon, for defendant.

Before: BRONSON, P.J., and QUINN and DANHOF, JJ.


Defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to the offense of using and displaying an operator's license issued to another. (MCLA § 257.324 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2024]). The trial judge accepted defendant's plea of guilty to this simple misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to 30 days in the Detroit House of Correction and $150 costs or an additional 15 days in the House of Correction. (MCLA § 257.901 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2601]).

Following the filing of defendant's appellate brief, the people filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendant claims that the trial court was under an obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if defendant's plea was made freely with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence. Although a trial judge is clearly under an obligation in accepting a guilty plea to comply with the respective court rule (GCR 1963, 785.3) and statutory provision (MCLA § 768.35 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058]) in felony cases and circuit court misdemeanors, such responsibility does not extend to simple misdemeanors. A review of the record reinforces our belief that defendant's argument lacks merit.

It is therefore the holding of this Court that the question sought to be reviewed, on which decision of this cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

Motion to affirm is granted.


Summaries of

People v. Barry

Michigan Court of Appeals
Mar 31, 1970
23 Mich. App. 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

People v. Barry

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. BARRY

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 31, 1970

Citations

23 Mich. App. 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
178 N.W.2d 129

Citing Cases

People v. Tomlinson

This Court has held that the trial judge's obligation to conduct an investigation to determine whether the…

People v. Mills

The majority of cases hold that the Boykin-Jaworski rights are inapplicable in a misdemeanor prosecution,…