Case Name: PEOPLE v. WALTON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-12-08
Citations: 28 Mich. App. 608
Docket Number: Docket No. 9846
Parties: PEOPLE v. WALTON
Judges: Before: Holbrook, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 28
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. WALTON
Criminal Law — Sentence—Discretion.
A sentence which is within the maximum set by statute will not be reviewed on appeal unless the sentencing court clearly abused its discretion in setting a minimum sentence, and an indeterminate sentence of 7-1/2 to 10 years is not an abuse of discretion.
Reference for Points in Headnote
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 533, 572.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Henry L. Heading, J. Submitted Division 1 November 17, 1970, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 9846.)
Decided December 8, 1970.
Ernest Earl Walton was convicted, on Ms plea of guilty, of larceny from a person. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, CMef, Appellate Department, and Thomas R. Lewis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Carl Ziemba, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Holbrook, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5 [3]) defendant's conviction, on plea of guilty, of larceny from a person, contrary to MCLA § 750.357 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.589).
On appeal, defendant, a 20-year-old first offender at the time of this conviction, contends that the 7-1/2 to 10 year sentence imposed by the court violates the indeterminate sentence law, MCLA § 769.8 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1080).
This Court will not review a sentence which is within the maximum provided by statute, except in a clear case where the court has failed to exercise sound judicial discretion in setting a minimum sentence. People v. Lessard (1970), 22 Mich App 342. We find no abuse of discretion in this case. Certainly the sentence in this case, unlike the sentence in Lessard, permits the parole board to exercise its statutory discretion.
Motion to affirm is granted.