People v. Furkas
| Decision Date | 05 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 133.,133. |
| Citation | 238 N.W. 173,255 Mich. 533 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. FURKAS. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Berrien County; Charles E. White, Judge.
Eugene L. Furkas was charged with arson, and pleaded guilty. From an order denying his motion to withdraw the plea, he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.George H. Bookwalter, of Benton Harbor, for appellant.
Paul W. Voorhies, Atty. Gen., and W. M. Cunningham, Pros. Atty., of Benton Harbor (Harold J. Waples, of Lansing, of counsel), for the People.
The defendant was charged with arson at St. Joseph, Berrien county, Mich. To the information filed against him, he entered a plea of guilty. Before his arrest, he made a written confession in which he stated that he set fire to the building at the instigation of the owners, Hurwich and Nicely. Subsequently they were arrested, tried, and convicted. On their trial defendant was a witness for the people and gave testimony along the line of his confession. After his plea of guilty to the arson charge, he was allowed his liberty on his own recognizance. About a month subsequent to the conviction of Hurwich and Nicely, he went to the office of their attorney and made a written statement under oath retracting his testimony given on the trial. This retraction was used by their attorney on a motion for a new trial. After this he absented himself from the state for about three months. In the meantime, a warrant had been issued against him for perjury. On March 23, 1931, he surrendered to the sheriff in answer to the perjury warrant. It was not served but he was retained in custody. On the same day, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea to the arson charge. This motion was denied and he was sentenced to prison for not less than nine years nor more than ten years with a recommendation that he serve nine years. From the order denying the motion to change his plea, he has appealed.
The statute applicable to this case, section 15830, C. L. 1915, reads as follows:
The defendant's motion to change the plea was supported by his affidavit in which he recited facts tending to show that it was induced by promises of reward and immunity and that he was not guilty of the offense charged. Denial of these facts was made in counter affidavits filed by the prosecuting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sheppard, 81.
...that the motion was made in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay. We do not here have a situation similar to People v. Furkas, 255 Mich. 533, 238 N.W. 173, where the court found that under the peculiar circumstances of that case it would be a gross travesty of justice to permit the ......
-
People v. Machus, 80.
...Grillo case does not control here. In the case at bar the sentence is invalid and must be set aside. Appellee relies on People v. Furkas, 255 Mich. 533, 238 N.W. 173, 174, and claims that it would be ‘a gross travesty of justice’ to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. In th......
-
Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Furkas
...were convicted, and to the statements made by him in an affidavit used on a motion for a new trial thereof. See, People v. Furkas, 255 Mich. 533, 238 N. W. 173;Pepople v. Hurwich, 259 Mich. 361, 243 N. W. 230. In admitting this testimony the trial court stated that for the time being it wou......
-
People v. Bencheck
...make some showing that he is not guilty of the charge to which he has pleaded.' The court in this regard relied upon People v. Furkas, 255 Mich. 533, 238 N.W. 173. The authority of this case bas been considerably weakened, however, in subsequent cases. People v. Vasquez, 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.......