People v. Wolschon
| Decision Date | 11 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 894,894,1 |
| Citation | 139 N.W.2d 123,2 Mich.App. 186 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Julius WOLSCHON, Defendant and Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Michael A. Guest, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C. J., and QUINN and WATTS, JJ.
After preliminary examination in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, an information was filed charging the defendant, Julius Wolschon, with murder with malice aforethought. C.L.1948, § 750.316 (Stat.Ann. § 28.548). A tentative date for trial was set for October 28, 1964, and on September 4, 1964 a defense motion to reduce the charge from murder in the first degree to manslaughter was heard and denied in the recorder's court. The case was then reset for trial on November 25, 1964, but for reasons not clearly indicated in the record, the defendant was brought before the court on November 17, 1964. At that time, in the presence of defense counsel, a plea of guilty was accepted by the court to the lesser included offense of manslaughter. C.L.1948, § 750.321 (Stat.Ann.1954, Rev. § 28.553). On December 1, 1964 the defendant was sentenced to 7 1/2 to 15 years imprisonment.
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty was filed by defense counsel subsequent to sentence, and from a denial of this motion by the trial court the defense takes this appeal. Defense assigns as error the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty after sentence.
A review of the record indicates that the trial court gave the defendant an exhaustive examination prior to accepting his plea of guilty. This Court feels that the trial judge properly apprised himself as to the freeness, voluntariness and lack of undue influence with which the plea was given, and that the judge fully satisfied the requirements of C.L.1948, § 768.35 (Stat.Ann. § 28.1058) and GCR 1963, 785.3(2).
The law as it stands today rests the withdrawal of a plea of guilty after sentence upon the sound discretion of the trial judge. See People v. Vasquez (1942), 303 Mich. 340, 6 N.W.2d 538; People v. Davis (1964), 372 Mich. 402, 126 N.W.2d 725; People v. Zaleski (1965), 375 Mich. 71, 133 N.W.2d 175. This Court turns to the language in Spalding v. Spalding (1959), 355 Mich. 382, 94 N.W.2d 810 in determining whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. As our Supreme Court said in Spalding, supra at 384-385, 94 N.W.2d at 811:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor
...People v. Dye (1967), 6 Mich.App. 217, 148 N.W.2d 501; People v. Wiggins (1967), 6 Mich.App. 340, 149 N.W.2d 261; People v. Wolschon (1966), 2 Mich.App. 186, 139 N.W.2d 123; People v. Hoy (1966), 3 Mich.App 666, 143 N.W.2d 577; People v. Shillings (1967), 6 Mich.App. 420, 149 N.W.2d 231.6 P......
-
Moyses v. Spartan Asphalt Paving Co., 10
...of a determination made between competing considerations.' See Spalding, quoted and applied by Division I, in People v. Wolschon (1966), 2 Mich.App. 186, 188, 139 N.W.2d 123. To conclude the question now in discussion: We read for proper application the second sentence of (1) of section 292......
-
People v. Bersine
...the exercise of judgment but the defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.' People v. Wolschon (1966), 2 Mich.App. 186, 188, 139 N.W.2d 123, 124.' A review of the record in the instant case reveals the following facts. In his recanting affidavit, Snell impl......
-
People v. Howard
...the exercise of judgment but the defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias." People v. Wolschon, 2 Mich.App. 186, 188, 139 N.W.2d 123, 124 (1966).' As we read the record, the trial court rejected the motion for a new trial because it believed that the jury h......