People v. Lang
Decision Date | 11 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 8,8 |
Citation | 162 N.W.2d 143,381 Mich. 393 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. John Alexander LANG, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., George E. Mason, Stewart H. Freeman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee.
John Alexander Lang, in pro. per.
Before the Entire Bench.
On February 14, 1966, defendant, represented by his court-appointed counsel, was arraigned in the Clinton county circuit court on a charge of felonious assault.
The reading of the information was waived and defendant's attorney informed the court of defendant's intention to stand mute. A plea of not guilty was entered.
February 23, 1966, in the Clinton county circuit court, defendant, through his attorney, informed the court of his desire to change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty.
There follows the questions the court asked and the answers defendant gave previous to the court's acceptance of such plea:
'How do you wish to plead?
'The plea of guilty is accepted and ordered entered upon the records of this court.
'The bond will be continued, and I will sentence you on March 14th at 1:30.
'MR. LANG: Yes sir.'
On March 14, 1966, defendant was sentenced to serve 1 1/2 to 4 years in the State prison of southern Michigan. On October 17, 1966, defendant appeared before the parole board on the expiration of his minimum term and the case was continued for 18 months. On November 4, 1966, defendant filed a petition and motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, set aside his conviction and be granted a new trial.
In denying defendant's motion, the trial court stated:
'While it does not appear in the petition, it would appear from Mr. Lang's covering letters and from paragraph 3 of his response to the prosecuting attorney's answer to the petition, that the motivating factor in this matter is the fact that the parole board denied him parole on the basis of his minimum sentence. Mr. Lang takes the position that this is a 'non-judicial increase in his minimum sentence, without proper cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Taylor
...involve questions on the record. There are at least three other cases where the issue should appear on the record. In People v. Lang, 381 Mich. 393, 162 N.W.2d 143 (1968) the question was one of statutory interpretation of the right of a parole board to 'flop' the defendant in an indetermin......
-
People v. Brown, Docket No. 143733.
...488 Mich. 891, 789 N.W.2d 173 (2010), and People v. Lofton, 488 Mich. 924, 789 N.W.2d 667 (2010). 12.Brown, 490 Mich. 976, 806 N.W.2d 531. 13.People v. Lang, 381 Mich. 393, 398–399, 162 N.W.2d 143 (1968). 14.MCR 6.302(A). 15.People v. Oswald (After Remand), 188 Mich.App. 1, 12, 469 N.W.2d 3......
-
People v. Cole
...INTERPRETATION A trial court's decision on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v.Lang, 381 Mich. 393, 398–399, 162 N.W.2d 143 (1968). The proper interpretation and application of a court rule is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Haliw v. Ster......
-
People v. Andrews, Docket No. 11212
...no abuse of discretion by the trial court in not allowing defendant to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing. People v. Lang (1968), 381 Mich. 393, 398, 162 N.W.2d 143. * M.C.L.A. § 750.110 (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.305). ...