People v. Stevenson
| Decision Date | 25 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 19596,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 60 Mich.App. 614,231 N.W.2d 476 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George E. STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
George Stevenson, in pro. per.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Richard J. Pasarela, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before T. M BURNS, P.J., and McGREGOR and WALSH, JJ.
This case has an unusual history. On December 17, 1971, defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797, and subsequently was sentenced to 8 to 40 years in prison. He filed an appeal with this Court on January 17, 1972, and appellate counsel was appointed. At that time, defendant had five other charges pending against him, including a charge of assault with intent to commit murder. As a result of a plea bargain, the five pending felony charges were dismissed in return for defendant's withdrawal of his armed robbery appeal. Defendant signed a waiver of appeal on April 3, and an order dismissing the appeal was issued on April 27, 1972.
On July 15, 1972, defendant wrote to the trial judge, requesting appointment of counsel for an appeal of the armed robbery conviction. Because of the defendant's failure to keep his part of the plea bargain, the prosecutor moved, on July 27, 1972, to reinstate the five felony charges. A trial on the charge of assault with intent to murder was scheduled but was never held, because the defendant pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 4 to 40 years in prison.
Defendant claims that he pled guilty to that charge in return for the prosecutor's promise to give back his right to appeal the armed robbery conviction. Following his guilty plea, the order reinstated charges were again dismissed.
On May 8, 1974, this Court denied defendant's application for delayed appeal of his armed robbery conviction.
Meanwhile, the defendant had appealed his plea-based conviction of assault with intent to commit murder. On August 16, 1974, this Court, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, reversed the defendant's conviction of assault with intent to commit murder.
On October 15, 1974, the Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for delayed appeal of his armed robbery conviction. The Court stated:
People v. Stevenson, 392 Mich. 809 (1974).
The end result of the bizarre factual history and complicated legal maneuvering of this case is apparent. Not only is the right to appeal non-negotiable in the instance of plea-based convictions, People v. Ledrow, 53 Mich.App. 511, 220 N.W.2d 336 (1974), it is also non-negotiable where the defendant is convicted following a trial and separately bargains away his right to appeal in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
It is quite clear, since Harrison, supra, that our Supreme Court holds that public policy forbids the prosecutor from insulating himself from review by either implicitly or explicitly bargaining away a defendant's right to appeal.
The case is, therefore, back before this Court once again, by virtue of the legal maneuverings noted above. We turn to a consideration of the defendant's one substantive complaint on appeal, namely, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial.
The only basis for this claim is that, while the defense counsel did file a pretrial notice of alibi listing four alibi witnesses, only two of the witnesses were called to testify.
Defendant urges that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel be reviewed under the standard announced in Beasley v. United States, 491 F.2d 687, 696 (CA 6, 1974). However, under either the Beasley standard or the standard announced in People v. Degraffenreid, 19 Mich.App. 702, 173 N.W.2d 317 (1969), we hold that the representation of the defendant by his defense counsel was neither incompetent nor ineffective.
A brief examination of the transcript clearly indicates that the defendant's claim is without merit. At trial, defendant testified that on the night of the robbery, a friend of his borrowed his car. Defendant claims that, from 7:30 until 10:00 p.m., he was at his girl friend's house. Both he and his girl friend then went to Mr. Emmett Davis' house to borrow Mr. Davis' car, in order to look for the defendant's car. Defendant claimed that his friend did not return his car until 12:00 or later that night. Defendant's girl friend testified and corroborated the defendant's story. The friend who allegedly borrowed the defendant's car also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Charles
...unconstitutional and/or contrary to public policy. (People v. Butler (1972) 43 Mich.App. 270, 204 N.W.2d 325; People v. Stevenson (1975) 60 Mich.App. 614, 231 N.W.2d 476; State v. Ethington (1979) 121 Ariz. 572, 592 P.2d 768; see also Worcester v. C.I.R. (1st Cir.1966) 370 F.2d 713). These ......
-
Whiting v. Burt
...courts will not find ineffective assistance in differences over tactics on what defenses and issues to raise, People v. Stevenson, 60 Mich.App. 614, 231 N.W.2d 476 (1975). JA at 3. The Michigan Court of Appeals In January of 2002, Defendant filed in the Michigan Court of Appeals a delayed a......
-
People v. Aiken
...reasonably expected to call upon witnesses to testify on behalf of a defendant only when such witnesses exist. (Cf. People v. Stevenson, 60 Mich.App. 614, 617, 231 N.W.2d 476.) Counsel is placed in a particularly difficult position when, as in this case, a defendant absents himself from tri......
-
People v. Johnston
...did call defendant's mother-in-law and neighbors of the mother-in-law in support of defendant's alibi defense. In People v. Stevenson, 60 Mich.App. 614, 231 N.W.2d 476 (1975), the Court held that the failure of counsel to call indorsed alibi witnesses was, under the facts of that case, a le......