192 N.W.2d 8 (Mich.App. 1971), 10102, People v. Thompson

Docket Nº:Docket No. 10102.
Citation:192 N.W.2d 8, 34 Mich.App. 665
Opinion Judge:[34 Mich.App. 666] PER CURIAM.
Party Name:PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McArthur THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:William J. Hayes, Hayes & Kittendorf, Flint, for defendant-appellant. Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Judge Panel:Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and J. H. GILLIS, JJ.
Case Date:June 28, 1971
Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 8

192 N.W.2d 8 (Mich.App. 1971)

34 Mich.App. 665

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

McArthur THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 10102.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

June 28, 1971

Released for Publication Dec. 8, 1971.

Page 9

William J. Hayes, Hayes & Kittendorf, Flint, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and J. H. GILLIS, JJ.

[34 Mich.App. 666] PER CURIAM.

Defendant was tried by the court and found guilty of entering without breaking, M.C.L.A. § 750.111 (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.306). His appeal as of right raises 2 issues of alleged error.

The defendant contends that the waiver of his right to a jury trial was done unknowingly and as the result of coercion exerted upon him by his trial counsel. The record does not support this argument. People v. Amos (1968), 10 Mich.App. 533, 539, 159 N.W.2d 855. The trial court expended considerable effort to explain to the defendant the importance of waiving such a valuable constitutional right. Furthermore, in the end, when all defendant's questions were answered, the defendant indicated orally to the court that he wished to waive this right. He also signed a formal waiver which was fully explained to him by the trial court.

Defendant also alleges that the trial court held a Walker hearing without affording his trial counsel adequate time to prepare. This, defendant argues, denied him the effective assistance of counsel. Again, the trial record does not substantiate this conclusion. People v. Sullivan (1969), 18 Mich.App. 1, 170 N.W.2d 514; People v. Degraffenreid (1969), 19 Mich.App. 702, 173 N.W.2d 317. Additionally...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP