People v. Paul, Docket No. 4625
| Decision Date | 30 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4625,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 13 Mich.App. 175,163 N.W.2d 803 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald M. PAUL, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Gerald F. Wigle, Roberts, Wigle & Nahhat, Warren, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Walter Gibbs, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and FITZGERALD and McGREGOR, JJ.
This case is submitted on the People's motions to dismiss and to affirm. Donald M. Paul was convicted, on plea of guilty, of the crime of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit a rape therein in violation of C.L.1948, § 750.110, P.A.1964, No. 133 (Stat.Ann.1968 Cum.Supp. § 28.305), and on July 13, 1967, he was sentenced to 7 to 15 years in prison.
The case presents 2 questions, first, whether the guilty plea was made freely, understandinly and voluntarily by defendant.* Second, whether the disclosure by defendant during the taking of the plea that he had been drinking at the time of the offense negated the specific intent required to establish the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty.
A review of defendant's brief, the motions to dismiss and to affirm, and the transcript of the plea examination discloses that the plea of guilty was made freely, understandingly and voluntarily by defendant. The transcript further shows that although defendant had been drinking, he was not so intoxicated as to negative the existence of the specific intent to commit rape, and defendant did by his plea affirm the existence of such intent. The prosecution is under no obligation to prove anything during the examination by the court of one seeking to plead guilty.
'The direct questioning of a defendant by the trial judge on plea of guilty is required by the rule for the purpose of establishing the crime and the participation therein of the person pleading guilty.' People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich. 267, 272, 99 N.W.2d 347, 350.
This was done, and done well, in this case.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...as a Criminal Defense, 55 Colum.L.Rev. 1210 (1955); Perkins on Criminal Law (2d ed.), pp. 91, 92.5 Cf. People v. Paul (1968), 13 Mich.App. 175, 177, 163 N.W.2d 803.6 We recognize that the 'frequently onesided examination testimony' may not be considered as a factor in granting or denying a ......
-
People v. Wade
...this examination of one seeking to enter a plea of guilty, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove anything. People v. Paul (1968), 13 Mich.App. 175, 163 N.W.2d 803. Indeed, the judge need only satisfy himself that the plea was made freely and understandingly with knowledge of its c......
-
People v. Crittle
...People v. Guillett, 342 Mich. 1, 5, 69 N.W.2d 140 (1955). See also Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401, 414 (1870) and People v. Paul, 13 Mich.App. 175, 177, 163 N.W.2d 803 (1968). My Brother Levin authoritatively brought this rule up to date while he sat on the Court of Appeals in People v. Ke......
-
People v. Stoner
...evidence of the defendant's narcosis in deciding whether he had the specific intent to commit the crime.9 In People v. Paul (1968), 13 Mich.App. 175, 163 N.W.2d 803, the transcript 'show(ed) that although defendant had been drinking, he was not so intoxicated as to negative the existence of......