People v. Skropski, 118.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 118.,118. |
| Citation | 292 Mich. 461,290 N.W. 869 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SKROPSKI et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Alfred Skropski, Elmer Rieck, and Harvey Van Horn were convicted of statutory rape, and from a judgment denying motions to set aside sentences, allow defendants to change their pleas from guilty to not guilty, and grant them a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macomb County; Neil E. Reid, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
John W. L. Hicks, of Detroit, for appellants.
Ivan A. Johnston, Pros. Atty., of Mount Clemens, for appellee.
Alfred Skropski, aged 22 years, Elmer Rieck, aged 25 years, and Harvey Van Horn, aged 18 years, upon arraignment in the circuit court, plead guilty to the crime of statutory rape (unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing a female under the full age of 16 years, Act No. 328, § 520, Pub.Acts 1931, Stat.Ann. § 28.788). Skropski was sentenced to a term of not more than 25 years, and not less than 12 years; Rieck to a term of 5 to 15 years, and Van Horn from 25 to 30 years. After sentence, and during imprisonment thereunder, defendants moved the court to set the sentences aside, allow them to change their pleas to not guilty, and grant them a new trial. The court denied the motions, and defendants appeal.
The circuit judge examined into their cases, had report from the friend of the court and took proof as to the age of the girl.
Defendants in their applications make no denial of their guilt beyond stating that they were too drunk to know what they were doing. They were not too drunk to drive an automobile, ask the girl to go with them, ostensibly, to a resort, and drive 11 miles into the country and there rape her, then drive to a town, get a lunch and return near to the former place and again rape her.
They claim that their cases were hurried through the court without opportunity to consult an attorney and that they plead guilty under the assurance of the assistant prosecuting attorney that such would be their best course.
A week elapsed between the entry of their pleas and sentence; their relatives and friends had access to them and, when they plead guilty, they stated to the court that no inducement to do so had been held out to them, and they did so because they were guilty. Before sentence the court had an investigation made and was fully informed as to their characters.
In the motions it is claimed that the sentences were excessive. For their crimes the statute attaches the penalty of life imprisonment or any term of years.
Decency forbids placing the details of their offense upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor
...of the plea including allegations outside the record and the constitutional question of right to counsel. People v. Skropski, 292 Mich. 461, 290 N.W. 869 (1940). In People v. Vasquez, 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538 (1942) the motion to withdraw was largely bottomed on an affidavit that the she......
-
People v. Wilkins, 691
...People v. Williams (1923), 225 Mich. 133, 195 N.W. 818; People v. Kobrzycki (1928), 242 Mich. 44, 217 N.W. 782; People v. Skropski (1940), 292 Mich. 461, 290 N.W. 869; People v. Vasquez (1942), 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538; People v. Kearns (1965), 2 Mich.App. 60, 138 N.W.2d It is an abuse o......
-
People v. Crane, 89.
... ... court to deny the motion, made after sentence, to permit withdrawal of plea of guilty, despite the claims that such plea was induced in the Skropski case by assurances by the prosecuting attorney that that would be defendant's best course, in the Goldman case by counsel's advice that the penalty ... ...
-
People v. Walls
...court. People v. Crane (1949), 323 Mich. 646, 36 N.W.2d 170; People v. Vasquez (1942), 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538; People v. Skropski (1940), 292 Mich. 461, 290 N.W. 869. The record clearly shows that defendant's plea of guilty was voluntary. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial cou......