Case Name: PEOPLE v. AUSTIN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-05-27
Citations: 34 Mich. App. 143
Docket Number: Docket No. 10599
Parties: PEOPLE v. AUSTIN
Judges: Before: Danhoe, P. J., and McGregor and Quinn, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 34
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. AUSTIN
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Daniel J. Van Antwerp, J.
Submitted Division 1 April 13, 1971, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 10599.)
Decided May 27, 1971.
Amended opinion filed February 24, 1972.
Charles Austin was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of larceny in a building. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
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.
Carl B. Bolden, Jr., for defendant on appeal.
Before: Danhoe, P. J., and McGregor and Quinn, JJ.
References for Points in Headnote
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 107, 108.
50 Am Jur 2d, Larceny § 35 et seq.

Opinion:
Original Opinion
Per Curiam.
Defendant pled guilty to the charge of larceny in a building. He asks this Court to vacate the plea of guilty and remand the case for new trial.
While the defense of intoxication or drug addiction is a defense to a specific intent crime, larceny in a building is not such a specific intent crime. Further the motion comes too late. People v. Miles (1970), 28 Mich App 562. The people have filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCE 1963, 817.5(3).
A review of the briefs and records in this cause make it manifest that the question sought to be reviewed is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.
Accordingly, the motion to affirm is granted.
Amended Opinion
Pee Cueiam.
Defendant pled guilty to the charge of larceny in a building, MOLA 750.360; MSA 28-.592. He asks this Court to vacate the plea of guilty and remand the case for new trial because prior to acceptance of the plea and prior to sentence, defendant indicated he was sick from drug addiction at the time of the offense. This attack on the validity of the plea is made for the first time on appeal. The people have moved to affirm, GCE 1963, 817.5 (3).
People v. Spencer, 23 Mich App 56 (1970), controls.
Motion to affirm is granted.
MCLA § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592).