From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dixon

Michigan Court of Appeals
Aug 25, 1969
18 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

Docket No. 5,940.

Decided August 25, 1969.

Appeal from Monroe, James J. Kelley, Jr., J. Submitted Division 2 July 15, 1969, at Lansing. (Docket No. 5,940.) Decided August 25, 1969.

Edward "Shorty" Dixon was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of violation of probation. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James J. Rostash, Prosecuting Attorney, and John J. Sullivan, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, for the people.

Stanley M. Krawetz, for defendant on appeal.

Before: BRONSON, P.J., and QUINN and DANHOF JJ.


Following hearing on probation violation, defendant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a prison term. He appealed as of right by claim of appeal. Although judgments entered after probation revocation are not appealable as of right ( Calhoun v. Macomb County Circuit Judge, 15 Mich. App. 416), we treat this appeal as on leave granted and consider the merits of the questions raised.

Defendant's brief on appeal argues that the trial court did not comply with GCR 1963, 785.3(2), during the probation revocation proceedings. The people have filed motion to affirm. GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

The court before sentence and after the guilty plea shall inform the accused of the nature of the accusation and the consequence of his plea and examine defendant to determine that the plea is voluntarily, freely and understandingly made before accepting it.

It is manifest that GCR 1963, 785.3(2), does not apply to a probation revocation hearing under MCLA § 771.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1134), such a proceeding not being a prosecution.

Hearings on probation revocation "shall be summary and informal and not subject to the rules of evidence of pleadings applicable in criminal trials. * * * The method of hearing and presentation shall be entirely within the discretion of the court which granted probation".

The questions raised, on which decision of the cause depends, are so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission. Accordingly, motion to affirm is granted.


Summaries of

People v. Dixon

Michigan Court of Appeals
Aug 25, 1969
18 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

People v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. DIXON

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 25, 1969

Citations

18 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
171 N.W.2d 591

Citing Cases

People v. Taylor

This was fortified by People v Stanley (1969), 18 Mich. App. 596, 597." In both cases appeal as of right was…