Case Name: PEOPLE v. ERSKIN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-03-27
Citations: 16 Mich. App. 645
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,364
Parties: PEOPLE v. ERSKIN
Judges: BEFORE: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 16
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. ERSKIN
Burglary — Breaking and Entering — Statute—Vagueness.
The language of the statute making breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny a felony includes the breaking and entering of a tavern, and to so interpret the statute does not render it unconstitutionally vague (CL 1948, § 750.110, as amended by PA 1964, No 133).
Reference for Points in Headnote
13 Am Jur 2d, Burglary § 6.
Appeal from Gratiot, Leo W. Corkin, J.
Submitted Division 3 March 5, 1969, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 5,364.)
Decided March 27, 1969.
John Milton Erskin was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Robert L. Douglas, for defendant on appeal.
BEFORE: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of the crime of breaking and entering a tavern with intent to commit a larceny therein contrary to CL 1948, § 750.110 as amended by PA 1964, No 133 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305). He was sentenced by the court to a term of from 2 to 10 years in prison.
Following the appointment of an attorney defendant moved to set aside the guilty plea and quash the information. The motions were denied and he has appealed.
Defendant asserts that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea when he had no attorney. An examination of the transcript of the arraignment shows that under People v. Dunn (1968), 380 Mich 693, and People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719, defendant waived his right to counsel knowingly and intelligently. Having so waived counsel and pled guilty, defendant cannot now successfully claim that he should have a new trial so that he can present the defense of intoxication to the charge.
The language of the applicable statute herein does include the breaking and entering of a tavern and to so interpret it does not render it unconstitutionally vague, as defendant claims.
There was no error shown on the part of the trial court.
Affirmed.