People v. Harvey

• Decision Date: 03 June 1970
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 8594,1
• Citation: People v. Harvey, 180 N.W.2d 316, 24 Mich.App. 363 (Mich. App. 1970)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Lee HARVEY, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 316

180 N.W.2d 316

24 Mich.App. 363

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Eddie Lee HARVEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 8594.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

June 3, 1970.

Released for Publication Oct. 20, 1970.

Arthur J. Cole, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros.Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Arthur N. Bishop, Asst. Pros.Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and HOLBROOK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case is submitted on the people's motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).With counsel present, defendant plea guilty to 'attempted carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle' contrary to M.C.L.A. § 750.227(Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.424) and the Michigan Attempt Statute, M.C.L.A. § 750.92(Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.287).Defendant was sentenced to serve 2 years 5 months to 2 years 6 months imprisonment and brings this appeal.

Defendant argues that his guilty plea was improperly taken because the judge below failed to apprise him of all the elements of the crime charged.The trial judge does not have to explain all the elements of the crime charged, People v. Melvin(1969), 18 Mich.App. 652, 171 N.W.2d 665, unless there is reason to doubt that the defendant understands the nature of the accusations.People v. Atkins(1966), 2 Mich.App. 199, 139 N.W.2d 325.A review of the record in the instant case reveals that the defendant understood the nature of the accusations and, as a result, the failure to explain all the elements of the crime was not error.

Defendant also argues that his guilty plea and conviction were improper because of an illegal search and seizure.A guilty plea waives all defects in the prior procedure and consequently whether or not the search was illegal, defendant's plea would still be valid.People v. Robbins(1967), 6 Mich.App. 633, 150 N.W.2d 175;Annot: Plea of Guilty as Waiver of Illegal Search and Seizure(1968), 20 A.L.R.3d 724.

A further review of the record reveals that the trial judge fully complied with GCR 1963, 785.3(2).Furthermore, the defendant does not allege that his plea was involuntary, untruthful, coerced, or that he was in fact not guilty.It is well settled that the defendant has the burden of showing more than technical noncompliance with the court rules, People v. Nelson(1969), 18 Mich.App. 177, 170 N.W.2d 846, and...