People v. Hilton, Docket No. 8542
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
| Writing for the Court | R. B. BURNS |
| Citation | 182 N.W.2d 29,26 Mich.App. 274 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Lee HILTON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 8542,2 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 1970 |
Page 29
v.
Edward Lee HILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Released for Publication Jan. 5, 1971.
[26 Mich.App. 275]
Page 30
Edward Lee Hilton, in pro. per.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 FITZGERALD, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and DANHOF, JJ.
R. B. BURNS, Judge.
Defendant and two others, Robert L. Bush and Samuel B. Brandon, were arrested and charged with breaking a safe with intent to commit larceny. M.C.L.A. § 750.531 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.799). At their joint non-jury trial all three defendants were represented by one attorney; Brandon by retainer, defendant and Bush by appointment. After the People had completed their proofs and rested, Bush and Brandon pleaded guilty of concealing stolen property valued at $100 or more. Their pleas were accepted. Trial continued against defendant Hilton who took the stand and denied any participation in the crime. The court found defendant guilty as charged.
Defendant claims that joint representation denied him effective assistance of counsel.
Sometime during the evening of September 2, 1965, the Imperial Carpet and Furniture Company in Flint was robbed of a safe, business machines, [26 Mich.App. 276] and post office substation supplies. The following morning Bush and Brandon were seen dumping a safe into Gilkey Creek. The safe was recovered and identified as the one taken from complainant's store. Defendant Bush and his wife were arrested in front of Brandon's home. Mrs. Brandon admitted the police into her home where office machines and post office substation supplies traced to complainant's store were found in the bedroom occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Bush. Defendant was implicated by Mr. and Mrs. Brandon.
Failure to appoint separate attorneys for indigent codefendants is not inherent error. Joint representation of codefendants becomes improper only when the interests of one defendant so conflict with the interests of other defendants that prejudice results from the joint representation. Glasser v. United States (1942), 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; Fryar v. United States (C.A. 10, 1968), 404 F.2d 1071; People v. Thomas (1968), 14 Mich.App. 718, 165 N.W.2d 891; People v. Williams (1969), 19 Mich.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Marshall, Docket No. 17305
...that: 'it is inconceivable to this court that he could have been referring to anyone other than Sawyer'. Likewise, People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 182 N.W.2d 29 (1970), cited by defendant, is The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not sufficiently shown herein to qualify unde......
-
People v. Osborn, Docket No. 20943
...not guarantee separate counsel for each codefendant. People v. Marshall, 53 Mich.App. 181, 189, 218 N.W.2d 847 (1974). People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 276, 182 N.W.2d 29 (1970). See also People v. Chacon, 69 Cal.2d 765, 73 Cal.Rptr. 10, 447 P.2d 106, 111 (1968). However, joint represent......
-
People v. Villarreal, Docket Nos. 78-1517
...N.W.2d 767, 770 [100 Mich.App. 390] (1975); People v. Marshall, 53 Mich.App. 181, 189-190, 218 N.W.2d 847, 852 (1974); People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 276, 182 N.W.2d 29, 30 (1970). This is because such relationships do not inevitably involve conflicts of interests. People v. Hilton, su......
-
People v. Jones, Docket No. 18385
...unless the interests of one defendant so conflict with the interests of another defendant that prejudice results. People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 276, 182 N.W.2d 29 (1970). Such [64 MICHAPP 668] prejudice is shown where evidence of a confession of one defendant is admitted into evidence......