People v. Langford, Docket No. 30112
Decision Date | 08 June 1977 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 30112 |
Citation | 256 N.W.2d 578,76 Mich.App. 197 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Young LANGFORD, Defendant-Appellant. 76 Mich.App. 197, 256 N.W.2d 578 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[76 MICHAPP 197] Robinson & Ford by David A. Swanson, Benton Harbor, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. [76 MICHAPP 198] Derengoski, Sol. Gen., John A. Smietanka, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P. J., and D. E. HOLBROOK and ALLAN C. MILLER, * JJ.
Defendant was convicted by the trial court, after proper waiver of jury trial, on November 7, 1975, of two counts of first-degree murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548. The record reveals that defendant was found guilty of executing Brenda Freeman and her seven-year-old son Johnny. The homicides were committed as part of an insurance fraud scheme in which defendant herein was a hit man in this murder which the trial court found: "as the most brutal, planned, heartless, savage killings, in the county's history". Following conviction defendant's motion for a new trial, alleging that his confession which was used at trial was involuntary, was denied. Defendant appeals.
The record reveals that defendant herein was charged with these murders and was at least under suspicion for other similar homicides. Defendant initiated discussions concerning a possible bargaining agreement and subsequently confessed to these two murders. In return for testimony against the other parties to these murders, these charges were to be dismissed and defendant was to be allowed to plead guilty to second-degree murder in another homicide. Defendant's confessions supplied graphic and horrifying detail into these murders for money. Defendant subsequently refused to [76 MICHAPP 199] testify against the others and went to trial on these two counts of first-degree murder. Defendant maintains now that his confession was per se involuntary.
Defendant did not challenge the voluntariness of this confession before or during trial. 1 No Walker 2 hearing was held or requested. Absent a finding of manifest injustice this issue has not been preserved for appellate review, M.C.L.A. § 769.26; M.S.A. § 28.1096, People v. Carroll, 396 Mich. 408, 240 N.W.2d 722 (1976).
The record reveals that defendant initiated discussions concerning the "plea bargain". Defendant even demanded that the agreement be in writing. Defendant was fully informed of all his Miranda 3 rights several times. Defendant was represented and advised by counsel. There is no claim that defendant was illiterate, of unsound mind, was under coercion or duress, or in any other way deprived of the exercise of free will. Defendant was able to weigh all the circumstances involved. He freely chose to confess and reveal the facts herein. Defendant, however, later changed his mind and refused to live up to his end of the plea bargain and justifiably these charges were then brought. Defendant now argues that his confession was per se inadmissible. 4 Based on the record [76 MICHAPP 200] below, we disagree. The trial court, following argument on the motion for new trial, found as follows:
[76 MICHAPP 201] "There is no case cited by either counsel on every point with the one with which we are now concerned. There certainly is no case in Michigan. The case that comes closest to our situation is that of Earl Gunsby v. The State of Florida, found in 316 Southern Reporter 2d Series 313, decided by the District Court of Appeals of Florida, Second District, on July 2, 1975. I would like to quote from page 314 as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Conte
...the voluntariness of a confession, a promise of leniency is merely one of many factors to consider, see People v. Langford, 76 Mich.App. 197, 256 N.W.2d 578 (1977), lv. den. 403 Mich. 835 (1978), cert. den. 440 U.S. 964, 99 S.Ct. 1512, 59 L.Ed.2d 779 (1979) (totality of the circumstances ap......
-
People v. Jones
...S.W.2d 920 (Ky.App.1970), and State v. Hutson, 537 S.W.2d 809 (Mo.App.1976).5 People v. Jones, fn. 2 supra, and People v. Langford, 76 Mich.App. 197, 199, 256 N.W.2d 578 (1977).6 The fact that the defendant initiated the bargaining was apparently of no significance to the court in United St......
-
People v. Bradley
...we find the case cited by defendant, People v. Pallister, 14 Mich.App. 139, 165 N.W.2d 319 (1968), inapposite. People v. Langford, 76 Mich.App. 197, 256 N.W.2d 578 (1977), lv. den. 403 Mich. 835 (1978), cert. den. 440 U.S. 964, 99 S.Ct. 1512, 59 L.Ed.2d 779 (1979), more closely addresses th......
-
Langford v. Lecureux, 95-1820
...were affirmed by the Michigan state courts, and the United States Supreme Court denied discretionary review. See People v. Langford, 256 N.W.2d 578 (Mich.Ct.App.1977), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 964 (1979). After an unsuccessful series of state post-conviction proceedings, Langford filed a peti......