Case ID: mich-app_25/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v. PATTON
    Criminal Law — Plea op Guilty — Preliminary Examination— Defects — Waiver.
    A defendant, by electing to plead guilty, effectively waives all defects in arraignment proceedings and the trial court did not err in accepting a plea of guilty without having the preliminary examination transcript in the court file where defendant, represented by counsel, entered a waiver.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 484-496.
    Appeal from Bay, Leon R. Dardas, J.
    Submitted Division 3 July 7, 1970, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket No. 9,077.)
    Decided August 4, 1970.
    Richard Lewis Patton was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug without a license. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengo ski, Solicitor General, and Eugene C. Pension, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Jamies G. Orforcl, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: Holbrook, P. J., and Fitzgerald and T. M. Burns, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant Richard Lewis Patton pleaded guilty to possession of a narcotic drug eontrary to MCLA § 335.153 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18-.1123). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea without having the preliminary examination transcript in the court file, even though defendant, represented by counsel, entered a waiver thereof. Defendant also argues that the trial court failed to question him in sufficient detail before accepting his guilty plea. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction, GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

It is well established that defendant, by electing to plead guilty, effectively waives all defects in the arraignment proceeding. People v. Robbins (1967), 6 Mich App 633; People v. Bess (1968), 11 Mich App 109. A review of the plea and sentencing transcripts reveals that the trial court fullv complied with the requirements of GCR 1963, 785.3“ and MCLA § 768.35 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1058). The questions presented here on appeal are unsubstantial and require no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm the defendant’s conviction is granted.