People v. Soltis
Decision Date | 28 January 1981 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 48866 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard SOLTIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Thomas P. Rabette, Bloomfield Hills, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Philip J. Crowley, Pros. Atty., Mary C. Smith, Pros. Attys. Appellate Service, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, C. J., and KELLY and SULLIVAN, * JJ.
On September 2, 1978, the defendant, Bernard Soltis, Jr., and William E. Wilson, were charged with possession with intent to deliver phencyclidine in violation of M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(b); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(b). Codefendant Wilson entered a plea. Defendant Soltis went to trial in Kalkaska County Circuit Court and was convicted of the crime charged on October 12, 1979. On December 10, 1979, defendant was sentenced to a term of from three to seven years in prison and appeals of right.
Defendant contends in his first two specifications of error that the trial court erred in finding that he did not have standing to raise the defense of entrapment and in its concluding that, alternatively, even if defendant did have standing he was not in fact entrapped. We find that the trial court did not err in finding that the informant's activities were directed only to the codefendant and that they were not within the knowledge of defendant Soltis whose furnishing for sale the controlled substance in this matter appears to have been solely the conducting of an illegal enterprise for profit.
We find that the trial court committed no error in imposing defendant's sentence which was within the proper minimum and maximum limits for the crime charged.
The defendant next argues that an adequate foundation for the reliability of the spectrophotometer test results was not established. In applying the rules announced in People v. Krulikowski, 60 Mich.App. 28, 230 N.W.2d 290 (1975), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the machine's reliability had been adequately established.
Finally, defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a Walker 1 hearing. Although a Walker hearing contemplates a pretrial motion, under proper circumstances the trial court should exercise its discretion to entertain a motion to suppress at trial. People v. Mitchell, 44 Mich.App. 679, 683, 205 N.W.2d 876 (1973), rev'd on other grounds, 402 Mich. 506, 265 N.W.2d 163 (1978). There it was said:
The transcript reveals that the matter was first discussed in chambers where legal precedents were examined. Defense counsel stated as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Beckley
...electrophoresis is sensitive and specific in measuring what it purports to measure. [Id. at 22, 340 N.W.2d 805.]44 People v. Soltis, 104 Mich.App. 53, 304 N.W.2d 811 (1981), modified on other grounds 411 Mich. 1037, 309 N.W.2d 186 (1981) (spectrophotometer test results); People v. Wesley, 1......
-
People v. Lucas
...establishing a sufficient foundation. See, e.g., People v. Schwab, 173 Mich.App. 101, 103, 433 N.W.2d 824 (1988); People v. Soltis, 104 Mich.App. 53, 55, 304 N.W.2d 811 (1981); People v. Krulikowski, 60 Mich.App. 28, 32-33, 230 N.W.2d 290 (1975). However, the trial court is afforded conside......
-
McCalvin v. Yukins
...determined that Petitioner waived the suppression issue because she did not file a pretrial motion to suppress. See People v. Soltis, 104 Mich.App. 53, 304 N.W.2d 811 (1981), and People v. Mitchell, 44 Mich.App. 679, 205 N.W.2d 876 (1973), overruled on other grounds by People v. Mitchell, 4......
-
People v. Brown, Docket No. 55779
...Mich. 825 (1970); People v. Wilder, 51 Mich.App. 280, 285, 214 N.W.2d 749 (1974), lv. den. 394 Mich. 774 (1975); People v. Soltis, 104 Mich.App. 53, 55-56, 304 N.W.2d 811 (1981), aff'd as modified on other grounds 411 Mich. 1037, 309 N.W.2d 186 (1981). Indeed, in People v. Greer, 91 Mich.Ap......