TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Peterson

People v. Peterson, 185 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 27, 1971
Docket
No. 8771
Judges
Bronson, Burns, Hope
Citations
185 N.W.2d 91530 Mich. App. 2151971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2199
Cited by 5

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

On January 8, 1968, defendant, while represented by counsel, pled guilty to the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. MOLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). On February 1, 1968, defendant was sentenced to a term of 8 to 10 years imprisonment. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate the sentence, withdraw the plea, and order a new trial.

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, it is contended that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to permit defendant, or his counsel, to examine the pre-sentence report. Secondly, it is contended that the trial court committed prejudicial error by accepting defendant’s plea of guilty.

As to the first issue, this Court has ruled previously on the issue of defendant’s right to review the pre-sentence report.

People v. Camak (1967), 5 Mich App 655 . The record in this case fails to disclose any request by defendant or his counsel to examine the pre-sentence report.

People v. Camak, supra; People v. Charles Williams (1969), 19 Mich App 544 .

It is well settled that the trial judge may consider defendant’s prior criminal record and other additional factors in determining sentence. MCLA § 771.14 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1144);

People v. Charles Williams, supra; People v. Camak, supra.

As to the second assignment of error, defendant contends that his plea was induced by his attorney’s promise that the court would be lenient. Upon *217 entering the plea, the defendant assured the court that his plea was voluntary and that he had not been promised leniency by anyone. The record discloses nothing to persuade this Court that defendant’s present assertion that the plea was induced by promises of leniency should be considered more accurate than his original recollection.

People v. Gant (1966), 4 Mich App 671, 675 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1971: 21973: 11974: 11981: 119712026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Hooper212 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
  2. People v. Sanders221 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. People v. Schirle306 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
  4. People v. Inosencio192 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
  5. People v. Godsey192 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)

Most recent

  1. People v. Schirle306 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. People v. Sanders221 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. People v. Hooper212 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
  4. People v. Godsey192 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
  5. People v. Inosencio192 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Camak, 147 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967) 39
People v. Williams, 172 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969) 20
People v. Gant, 145 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list