From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Miles

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 8, 1970
28 Mich. App. 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

Docket No. 9016.

Decided December 8, 1970.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Samuel H. Olsen, J. Submitted Division 1 October 27, 1970, at Detroit. (Docket No. 9016.) Decided December 8, 1970.

Alvin Lee Miles was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of armed robbery. Defendant appeals. Motion to affirm granted.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Thomas J. Olejnik, for defendant on appeal.

Before: J.H. GILLIS, P.J., and V.J. BRENNAN and O'HARA, JJ.

Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.


The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5[3]) defendant's conviction, on his plea of guilty, of armed robbery contrary to MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.797).

It is manifest from an examination of the record that the question sought to be appealed, on which decision of this cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238 ( 89 S Ct 1709, 23 L Ed 2d 274) does not require the specific enumeration and waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury and the right to confront one's accusers. People v. Sepulvado (1970), 27 Mich. App. 66. Defendant's reference at the arraignment proceedings to the fact that he was "on the habit of narcotics" is not sufficient to establish that defendant was under the influence of narcotics and unable to form a specific intent. See People v. Spencer (1970), 23 Mich. App. 56. The bare suggestion of narcotics intoxication is not sufficient basis for a remand for an evidentiary hearing, especially where, as here, defendant did not allege below and does not allege here that he was in fact under the influence of narcotics and unable to form the specific intent. Finally, there was no necessity for the court to advise defendant of the possibility of a mandatory minimum sentence under the armed-robbery statute where neither defendant nor his accomplice assaulted or injured anyone during the commission of the robbery.

Motion to affirm is granted.


Summaries of

People v. Miles

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 8, 1970
28 Mich. App. 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

People v. Miles

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. MILES

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 8, 1970

Citations

28 Mich. App. 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
184 N.W.2d 507

Citing Cases

State v. Ross

She has had one year of college. It is apparent from our review of the record that she entered into the…

People v. Royce Brown

Both issues have been raised in this Court before and decided adversely to the defendant's position. People…