Court Opinion

ID: 9672928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:02:58.550538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.237638
License: Public Domain

Quinn, P. J.
(dissenting). In order to place this case in its proper appellate posture, it should be noted that this appeal is from tbe trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw plea and vacate sentence. Such a motion is addressed to tbe *370discretion of the trial court. People v. Vasquez (1942), 303 Mich 340. What we review is the exercise of that discretion by the trial court, and the grant or denial of appellate relief is controlled by our determination of whether or not the discretion has been abused.
The standard by which we determine abuse of discretion is established by statute, CL 1948, § 769.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Eev § 28.1096) and by rule, GrCE 1963, 529.1. A finding of abuse of discretion requires a finding of violation or denial of constitutional right or of miscarriage of justice. People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719.
Defendant makes no claim that a constitutional right was violated or denied nor that there has been a miscarriage of justice, probably because any such claim would not be supported by the record. His sole argument for relief is based on alleged technical noncompliance with Court Rule No 35A (1945), presently GCR 1963, 785.3.
On the authority of People v. White (1967), 8 Mich App 220, People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131, and People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719, I vote to affirm.