Case Name: PEOPLE v. LARKINS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-10-28
Citations: 19 Mich. App. 584
Docket Number: Docket No. 7,288
Parties: PEOPLE v. LARKINS
Judges: Before: Quinn, P. J., and Bronson and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 19
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. LARKINS
Appeal from Macomb, George R. Deneweth, J.
Submitted Division 2 October 8, 1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 7,288.)
Decided October 28, 1969.
Eugene Larkins, Jr., was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of armed robbery. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, George N. Parris, Prosecuting Attorney, Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Stephen F. Osinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Hopping & Burkart, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Quinn, P. J., and Bronson and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was arrested on January 15, 1968, and charged with armed robbery (MCLA § 750.529 [Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28-.797]) following the robbery of a gas station in the city of Mount Clemens, Macomb county. Counsel was appointed and a preliminary examination held on March 26, 1968. On the day set for trial in September of 1968, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge. His plea was determined by Ma- comb county circuit judge George R. Deneweth to have been understandingly, freely and voluntarily given, without threat or promise, and with the aid of counsel. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellate counsel was appointed, and application for delayed appeal granted in May, 1969.
Defendant here contends that the trial judge failed to adequately explain to him the elements and nature of the crime charged. As a result, defendant claims he did not understandingly enter his plea of guilty. An examination of the record indicates that in accordance with the decision in People v. Cherry (1968), 10 Mich App 420, the trial judge properly determined that defendant understood both the nature of the accusation and the possible outcome of his guilty plea.
Affirmed.