People v. Wynn, Docket No. 4482
| Decision Date | 26 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 4482,2 |
| Citation | 165 N.W.2d 493,14 Mich.App. 268 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clemon WYNN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Milton R. Henry, Pontiac, for appellant.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for committing perjury in violation of C.L.1948, § 750.422 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.664). The appeal raises nine issues of alleged reversible error.
Several unendorsed witnesses testified at trial. No objection was made to their testimony. Defendant's claim of reversible error in this respect is contrary to People v. Rimson (1966), 3 Mich.App. 713, 143 N.W.2d 587.
Defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to establish the crime is not supported by the record.
Defendant claims reversible error in the instructions given and in the failure to instruct. The record discloses neither objection to the charge given nor request to instruct that was not given. Error, if any, was not preserved. GCR 1963, 516.2, People v. Cassiday (1966), 4 Mich.App. 215, 144 N.W.2d 676. The charge as a whole was fair, proper and adequate.
Defendant seeks a new trial because of the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.
'It is the general rule that relief from a final conviction on the ground of incompetent or ineffective counsel will be granted only when the trial was a farce, or a mockery of justice, or was shocking to the conscience of the reviewing court, or the purported representation was only perfunctory, in bad faith, a sham, a pretense, or without adequate opportunity for conference and preparation.' Williams v. Beto (5 Cir. 1965), 354 F.2d 698, 704.
On this record, the foregoing test is not met.
The 3 remaining errors asserted by defendant are so inconsequential they do not merit discussion.
Affirmed.
* JOHN T. LETTS, Circuit Judge for the County of Kent, appointed by the Supreme Court for the hearing month of November, 1968, pursuant to § 306, P.A.1964, No. 281.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dombkowski
...Turner (1970), 26 Mich.App. 211, 182 N.W.2d 62; People v. Degraffenreid (1969), 19 Mich.App. 702, 173 N.W.2d 317; People v. Wynn (1968), 14 Mich.App. 268, 165 N.W.2d 493; Williams v. Beto (C.A. 5, 1965), 354 F.2d 698. Defendant has not shown any of these reasons with respect to his represen......
-
People v. Shipp
...597, 158 N.W.2d 436). The record clearly discloses that the trial was neither a sham nor a mockery of justice. People v. Wynn (1968), 14 Mich.App. 268, 269, 165 N.W.2d 493. 'The grant of a motion for new trial is discretionary with the trial court. People v. Poole (1967), 7 Mich.App. 237, 1......
-
People v. Conklin
...Turner (1970), 26 Mich.App. 211, 182 N.W.2d 62; People v. Degraffenreid (1969), 19 Mich.App. 702, 173 N.W.2d 317; People v. Wynn (1968), 14 Mich.App. 268, 165 N.W.2d 493; Williams v. Beto (C.A.5, 1965), 354 F.2d 698. Applying the accepted standard, we find defendant's contention of ineffect......
-
People v. Higginbotham, Docket No. 6152
...sham, a pretense, or without adequate opportunity for conference and preparation' is not effective representation. People v. Wynn (1968), 14 Mich.App. 268, 269, 165 N.W.2d 493; People v. Davison (1968), 12 Mich.App. 429, 434, 163 N.W.2d 10; People v. Crawford (1969), 16 Mich.App. 92, 96, 16......