People v. Otler, Docket No. 15818
| Decision Date | 16 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 15818,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald OTLER, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John P. Siler, Bellairs, Dean, Cooley & Siler, Flint, for defendant-appellant.
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 DANHOF, P.J., and BRONSON and O'HARA,* JJ.
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of receiving and concealing stolen property with a value in excess of $100. M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803. 1 This appeal followed.
On appeal defendant first argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by failing to make a sufficient inquiry in regard to defendant's generalized statement of dissatisfaction with appointed counsel on the day of trial.
It appears that defendant had a companion were arrested on February 17, 1972, after police officers received a call to check on two suspicious men who had been seen carrying a television set and what was thought to be a typewriter. On seeing the police cruiser the defendant and his companion fled but were soon apprehended by the police. The officers retrieved the merchandise (a television and tape recorder) which the defendant and his cohort had discarded in their understandable haste to leave the scene. Further investigation led the officers to check on a particular house in the neighborhood. Upon a search of the premises it quickly became evident that the house had been broken into and that only exposed wires remained where a television had once been hooked up. When the owners returned home they identified the items recovered by the police as those which were taken from their residence.
Once defendant established his inability to retain counsel, an attorney was appointed at public expense. Original counsel was subsequently permitted to withdraw from the case because as an assistant prosecutor she had been involved with a charge against defendant's father. Evidently her discussions with defendant raised serious doubts as to whether there would be sufficient trust between herself and the defendant so that she could receive the cooperation necessary to tender the best possible defense to the crime charged.
The defendant's trial counsel was appointed to represent him in further proceedings. At the preliminary examination trial counsel Inter alia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to bind defendant over to circuit court on the offense charged. The motion was denied. Prior to trial defense counsel made two other motions. A motion to quash the information because of an alleged insufficiency of proof as to the value of the stolen property was denied. A motion to hire an appraiser at public expense to determine the value of the chattels was granted.
There was no record of dissatisfaction by defendant with counsel until the day of the trial. On that day defendant requested the court to appoint a different attorney simply because: The motion was denied by the trial judge.
Defendant was afforded appointed counsel as constitutionally and statutorily mandated. There are no allegations of incompetence or lack of diligent preparation which would abridge defendant's right to the assistance of counsel. If defendant had any legitimate reason for desiring appointment of different counsel, he had more than adequate apportunity to make his grounds known earlier. On this record, we hold that the trial judge made a sufficiently detailed inquiry in response to defendant's extremely late and generalized objections to the attorney who was appointed to represent him in the pending trial. There was no abuse of discretion.
The next objection is that when the trial judge charged the jury with respect to determining market value of the stolen property he erroneously created the impression that fair market value was the highest estimate of value supported by expert testimony. 2
In his charge to the jury the trial judge stated in pertinent part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harlan
...grounds, 107 Mich.App. 701, 309 N.W.2d 708 (1981), rev'd on other grounds, 413 Mich. 937, 320 N.W.2d 667 (1982); People v. Otler, 51 Mich.App. 256, 214 N.W.2d 727 (1974). Defendant was not entitled to perpetually threaten and then replace his court-appointed attorneys. See Meyers, supra, 12......
-
People v. Tucker
...by a substantial reason, does not amount to adequate cause, particularly when the request is belated. See People v. Otler, 51 Mich.App. 256, 258-259, 214 N.W.2d 727 (1974). The trial court's denial of a request for a new attorney is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Morgan, 144......
-
People v. Hamblin
...defined as the value at the time and in the place where the damage occurred. The commentary to CJI2d 32.1 cites People v. Otler, 51 Mich.App. 256, 259-260, 214 N.W.2d 727 (1974), as authority for the fair-market-value test. That case involved a prosecution for receiving or concealing stolen......
-
People v. Tillman, Docket No. 18998
...v. Fishel, 270 Mich. 82, 258 N.W. 217 (1935); People v. Gilbert, 163 Mich. 511, 128 N.W. 756 (1910). See also People. v. Otler, 51 Mich.App. 256, 214 N.W.2d 727 (1974). The prosecutor presented sufficient evidence to show that the property in question was worth more than $100 on the open ma......