People v. Tate, s. 80-82.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1946
• Docket Number: Nos. 80-82.,s. 80-82.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TATE (three cases)
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

315 Mich. 76

23 N.W.2d 211

PEOPLE

v.TATE (three cases)

Nos. 80-82.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 3, 1946.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Eaton County; Archie D. McDonald, judge.

Henry Tate, Calvin Tate, and Thomas Tate pleaded guilty to the second count of information which charged them with committing assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. From Judgments denying their motions to set aside their pleas of guilty and sentences and that they be granted a new trial, they appeal.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

John Wendell Bird, of Lansing, for appellants.

Burton G. Cameron, Pros. Atty., of Charlotte, for appellee.

NORTH, Justice.

Each of the three defendants herein has appealed from denial in the circuit court of his motion to set aside his plea of guilty and the sentence imposed and that he be granted a new trial. These defendants were charged separately and each entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced. But since decision in each case is controlled by determination of the same issue on records which in point of law are identical, we write it as the individual appeal of Henry Tate. He was arrested on a warrant issued by the municipal judge of the city of Charlotte, before whom a complaint had been made. As set forth in the warrant, defendant was charged with having made an assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to murder one Lawrence Bodell. An examination before the municipal judge resulted in defendant being held for trial in the circuit court. Defendant was arraigned in circuit court on an information wherein the first count charged the offense set forth in the warrant, and in a second count the information charged the defendant with having committed an assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. When first arraigned defendant stood mute and a plea of not guilty was entered. Simultaneously defendant's counsel made a motion to quash the information. But before the motion to quash was passed upon by the circuit judge defendant, accompanied by his counsel, again appeared in the circuit court and requested withdrawal of the plea of not guilty which had been entered. Defendant's request was granted, he was thereupon rearraigned, the information was read to him by the prosecuting attorney, and defendant pleaded guilty to the second count of the information-i. e., committing an assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. A short time thereafter defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary.

Subsequent to the imposition of sentence defendant's counsel made a motion that defendant's plea of guilty and the sentence imposed be set aside and that he be granted a new trial. The motion was denied and this appeal followed. Appellant relies upon a single ground urged in support of his motion, which in his brief is set forth as follows:

‘Although the motion in the above case was filed upon several grounds * * * the only one necessary to consider in this Brief, is that the Municipal Judge who conducted the examination had no authority since he was elected under this Charter Amendment which established invalid and unconstitutional qualifications for the office. Hence, the theory of the Defendants is that the election of the Judge was invalid and void, and he had no jurisdiction over the defendants at the time the warrants and complaints were issued in this cause or at the time of the subsequent examination.’

While, for reasons hereinafter set forth, it is quite immaterial to decision of the instant case, nonetheless we note that the ‘charter amendment’ referred to was an amendment to the charter of the city of Charlotte by which it was sought to abolish the office of justices of the peace in that city and in place thereof to create a municipal court, ‘which said Court shall be presided over by one Judge, to be known as the Municipal Judge, who shall have been, at the time of his election, a resident of the City of Charlotte for five (5) years and an attorney licensed to practice law in the Supreme Court of this State.’ In brief, appellant's claim is that the charter amendment creating the municipal court and providing for the election of a municipal judge is ...