People v. Williams, Docket No. 5199
| Decision Date | 24 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 5199,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Oscar WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
C. William Garratt, Garratt & Nickson, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief Appellate Div., Luvenia D. Dockett, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and O'HARA, * JJ.
This appeal follows defendant's conviction by a jury on November 9, 1967 of felonious assault (M.C.L.A. § 750.82 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.277)) and robbery armed (M.C.L.A. § 750.829 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.797)). The offenses allegedly took place on December 9, 1966. Defendant was originally represented in circuit court by the same assigned counsel who represented him at the preliminary examination. Thereafter, defendant was represented by retained counsel who filed his appearance on both April 24, and May 30, 1967. In the interim, the trial court had received, considered and denied a motion to quash, filed October 11, 1967. The only other facts relevant to this appeal are contained in the record of the trial, dated November 8, 1967, which commences as follows:
'The Court Clerk: People versus Charles O. Williams, charged with one, robbery armed and two, felonious assault.
'Mr. Poehlman (Assistant Prosecuting Attorney): People are ready.
'Mr. Monash (Defense counsel): The defense is not ready. I know you have my notice to withdraw, which I filed at noon today. I left your courtroom and I didn't realize at the time that I had a call from Mr. Albert Goldfarb and Mrs. Williams, who is here, and she contacted Mr. Goldfarb about having Mr. Goldfarb substitute for me.
'Mr. Goldfarb is in a murder trial before Judge Olsen, but he was here for about a half an hour. Mr. Batts called Judge Olsen, and I understand that Mrs. Williams, in my presence told me that Mr. Williams did not want me as his attorney. Mr. Goldfarb is talking about substituting for me. That is right, isn't it, Mrs. Williams?
'The Court: Is there anything else?
'Mr. Monash: In the motion yesterday morning something very drastic came up between my client and I, and I feel that I could not do the job expected of me, and I feel that it would be an injustice for him to have me for an attorney and for me to go into trial.
'The Court: I am concerned, Mr. Monash, because this case has been up; this is about the fourth time.
'I heard Mr. Williams the last time he was here and I heard you the last time. The only thing I am concerned about is competence. I know that you are, and we are going to proceed to trial. Is this going to be an adjourned trial or a waiver?
'Mr. Monash: Well, I have to talk to him.
'The Court: You have been on this case for quite a while, so I just want to know if you want a jury or if it is going to be waived.
'Mr. monash: Could I go into the jury room privately for five minutes?
'The Court: Go ahead, and make up your mind right away. I am denying your motion because it does not speak of anything of substance. I know that you are competent.
'Mr. Williams, I don't know what his views are in this matter, so as far as personality conflicts are concerned, but personality conflicts are not the matter with which the Court is concerned.
'This matter has been adjourned over and over again for one reason or another. Mr. Williams has had sufficient time if he wished to retain someone else. The Court feels that this is a delaying tactic and nothing more.
'Mr. Monash: It is not a delaying tactic, your Honor.
'The Court: I am not faulting you.
'Mr. Monash: I have no such intentions, your Honor.
'The Court: I am not accusing you, but we will proceed to trial and if you will advise us promptly, please.
'Defendant: The reason why I feel that I must speak now to insure you that there is no delaying tactic involved here on my part is because since June, when this case was first assigned to you, as I understand, I did not see my attorney until the last time we appeared here in this courtroom.
'Mr. Monash: You saw me in the county jail before.
'Defendant: When I saw you in October you told me the case had been assigned in June to him. The last time I saw him was in June since October. I told him then about last month, which was the first time I had seen him since June, and I understand that it was assigned in June. Somebody told me the case had been assigned to your in June.
'I told him there were two witnesses I wanted, and he has not made preparation to get the witnesses for my defense, because it seemed that he was apparently so sure that I would plead to some charge that I could not have committed. This is why I told my mother that due to the fact that he has not been working on the case, it appears that I ask that I get someone to try to bolster my defense because I am not guilty of a robbery. I never robbed anybody in my life.
'The Court: Mr. Williams, we are going to proceed to the trial today.
'Defendant: But, he has not gotten my witnesses.
'The Court: I am sure that he has made whatever efforts that are required to prepare the case. You have talked to him about it I am sure, and he has prepared the defense to the best ot his ability.
'Whether or not he has your witnesses does not mean that he is preparing it the way you want him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...Court for the city of Detroit on November 9, 1967, of felonious assault 1 and robbery armed. 2 The Court of Appeals affirmed. 26 Mich.App. 46, 181 N.W.2d 825. On the day the trial began, defendant's counsel, Mr. Monash, made request that he be allowed to withdraw because the defendant Willi......
-
People v. Shuey
...are within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Rastall, 20 Mich.App. 264, 174 N.W.2d 33 (1969), People v. Williams, 26 Mich.App. 46, 181 N.W.2d 825 (1970), Reversed and remanded, 386 Mich. 565, 194 N.W.2d 337 Whether the trial court properly ruled in denying the defense motio......
-
People v. Grenier, Docket No. 9578
...continuance. The decision whether or not to grant a continuance rests with the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Williams (1970), 26 Mich.App. 46, 181 N.W.2d 825. A review of the record reveals that there was no abuse of discretion and no reversible Affirmed. O'HARA, J., sat bu......
-
People v. Thompson, Docket No. 11944
...the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const.1963, art. 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.1 Reversing my authored opinion at 26 Mich.App. 46, 181 N.W.2d 825 (1970). ...