People v. Green
Decision Date | 06 May 1983 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 63332 |
Citation | 332 N.W.2d 610,123 Mich.App. 563 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Neil GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. 123 Mich.App. 563, 332 N.W.2d 610 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[123 MICHAPP 565] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Gerald L. White, Pros. Atty. and Mary C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender by Stuart B. Lev, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before BRONSON, P.J., and T.M. BURNS and ALLEN, JJ.
On July 6, 1981, defendant pled guilty to transporting a female for the purpose of prostitution, M.C.L. Sec. 750.459; M.S.A. Sec. 28.714, and was sentenced to a term of from 5 to 20 years imprisonment. He appeals as of right.
Defendant first argues that the statute to which he pled guilty is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. However, constitutional challenges on the basis of vagueness, other than those based on First Amendment rights, must be examined in the light of the case's particular facts. People v. Gilliam, 108 Mich.App. 695, 310 N.W.2d 843 (1981). Furthermore, for defendant to have standing to challenge the statute on overbreadth the statute must be . People v. Burton, 87 Mich.App. 598, 601, 274 N.W.2d 849 (1978). Defendant's hypotheticals for both constitutional attacks present some interesting problems. However, defendant's conduct clearly fits within the [123 MICHAPP 566] statute. He intentionally drove in his car a woman from Saginaw to Midland to place her into a house of prostitution. Whatever else the statute may or may not cover, it applies here. As such, defendant has no standing to argue either constitutional issue.
Defendant also argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it impermissibly discriminates on the basis of sex. However, the operative word in the statute is the word "person". As such, either men or women can violate this statute. Therefore defendant does not have standing to challenge this statute on an equal protection basis. In United States v. Garrett, 521 F.2d 444, 446 (CA8, 1975), the defendant appealed his Mann Act, 18 USC 2421, conviction claiming that it denied him equal protection of the laws because it applied only to transporting females and not to transporting males:
Similar results have been reached in United States v. Bankston, 603 F.2d 528 (CA5, 1979); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa, 1979); United States v. Smith, 574 F.2d 988 (CA9, 1978), cert. den. sub. nom. Komok v. United States, 439 U.S. 825, 99 S.Ct. 158, 58 L.Ed.2d 156 (1978) ( Washington law); Ex Parte Groves, 571 S.W.2d 888 (Tex.Cr.App., 1978); United States v. Green, 554 F.2d 372 (CA9, 1977); People v. Sherrod, 50 Ill.App.3d 532, 8 Ill.Dec. 607, 365 N.E.2d 993 (1977); United States v. Caesar, 368 F.Supp. 328 (ED Wis., 1973), [123 MICHAPP 567] aff'd sub. nom. United States v. Harden, 519 F.2d 1405 (CA7, 1975).
Defendant next argues that the following factual basis elicited at his guilty plea is insufficient:
Defendant argues that this recital was nothing more than just responding affirmatively to a legal conclusion as was condemned in People v. Atcher, [123 MICHAPP 568] 57 Mich.App. 148, 151, 226 N.W.2d 77 (1974): 1 "Defendant's affirmative response required him to make a legal determination * * *." However, the present case presents more than just the legal determination based on three questions as in Atcher. A reasonable jury could have drawn an inculpatory inference from this factual basis and convicted defendant. People v. Haack, 396 Mich. 367, 240 N.W.2d 704 (1976); Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich. 96, 235 N.W.2d 132 (1975), cert. den. 429 U.S. 1108, 97 S.Ct. 1142, 51 L.Ed.2d 561 (1977). Here, defendant admitted to transporting Dawn Neer and to that fact that the object of that trip was for the purpose of prostitution. These statements constituted more than a mere admission that he was legally guilty.
Defendant next argues that he should be resentenced because the original presentence report did not comply with M.C.L. Sec. 771.14; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1144, which requires that the "report shall include a specific written recommendation for disposition". The presentence report in this case states:
In failing to make any recommendation at all, this report does not comply with the statute. As such, this case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jackson
...(1987). Remand for resentencing is mandated where a presentence report fails to make any recommendation at all. People v. Green, 123 Mich.App. 563, 568, 332 N.W.2d 610 (1983). However, here the presentence report did give a Further, defendant was in no way prejudiced. The presentence report......
-
People v. Duckwyler
... ... predecessor to MCR 6.302] because all of the elements of the ... offense charged were established not in [the defendants'] ... own words, but through 'yes' answers to leading ... questions propounded by the court," this was allowed ... under Byrd ); People v Green , 123 Mich.App ... 563, 567-568; 332 N.W.2d 610 (1983) (distinguishing ... Atcher and allowing leading questions to establish a ... factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea because ... "the present case present[ed] more than just the legal ... determination ... ...
-
Gentry, Matter of
...respondents' conduct. One may not challenge a statute on grounds of overbreadth when the statute clearly applies. People v. Green, 123 Mich.App. 563, 565, 332 N.W.2d 610 (1983). In the present case, there is no question that respondents' conduct clearly fits within the statute. The uncontra......
-
People v. Hart
...a specific written recommendation for disposition as required by M.C.L. Sec. 771.14; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1144 and People v. Green, 123 Mich.App. 563, 332 N.W.2d 610 (1983). Defendant and his attorney extensively exercised their right to allocution at sentencing and defendant's claim which consti......