People v. Smith, Docket No. 6246
| Decision Date | 23 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 6246,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 176 N.W.2d 729,22 Mich.App. 22 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred SMITH, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Robert J. McClear, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Patricia J. Pernick, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant was found guilty of the crime of gross indecency with a female person by a jury in the recorder's court for the city of Detroit. C.L.S. § 750.338b (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.570(2)).
On appeal, the only issue is whether defendant's constitutional right to represent himself was denied. U.S.Const.Am. 6; Const.1963, art. 1, § 13.
The trial court assigned attorney Jesse Holliday to represent defendant. Mr. Holliday had been defendant's assigned counsel in another case involving a three day trial. The defense in both that case and the present one was alibi and involved the same alibi witnesses. Further, defendant pleaded guilty at the other trial to breaking and entering a dwelling place with intent to commit a felony therein. That dwelling place was the same building as the one in which the crime occurred in this case.
On the day set for trial and prior to the selection of the jury, defendant indicated to the trial court that he was dissatisfied with his assigned counsel. There followed an extensive colloquy between the court, the defendant, and the assigned counsel regarding this matter. At the conclusion of this discussion, defendant and his assigned counsel went into the detention cell to confer and the case was adjourned until the next day. No dissatisfaction with or objection to assigned counsel was thereafter made by defendant and Mr. Holliday continued to represent defendant throughout the trial of this case.
After a careful examination of the record we have concluded that the defendant did not unequivocally request that he be permitted to conduct his own defense and that the trial court did not err in allowing previously assigned counsel to continue to represent the defendant during his trial. Compare United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno (CA 2, 1965), 348 F.2d 12, 15, 16, certiorari denied DiBlasi v. McMann, 384 U.S. 1007, 86 S.Ct. 1950, 16 L.Ed.2d 1020; People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McGath, Docket No. 7109
...the trial court does not err in permitting assigned counsel to continue to represent the defendant. Thus, in People v. Smith (1970), 22 Mich.App. 22, 176 N.W.2d 729, where defendant indicated on the day of trial, prior to jury selection, that he was dissatisfied with assigned counsel and th......
-
People v. Kirkland
...conduct the defense, the trial judge achieved the fairest accommodation of the conflicting interests at stake here. People v. Smith, 22 Mich.App. 22, 176 N.W.2d 729 (1970), was a case remarkably similar to the instant case. The sole issue raised was the same. There, on the date set for tria......
-
People v. McMillan
...neither objected nor expressed any dissatisfaction with assigned counsel--a prerequisite in this type of case. People v. Smith, 22 Mich.App. 22, 176 N.W.2d 729 (1970). Moreover, an accused must unequivocally state that he wants to represent himself. People v. Anderson, 55 Mich.App. 317, 222......