People v. Leflore

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Norman

    44 Mich. App. 366 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Since the prosecutorial promise made to defendant in the instant case has been fulfilled, the fact that a bargain was made is no grounds for vacating defendant's plea, even if his plea was thereby induced. People v. Kindell, 17 Mich. App. 22, 23 (1969); People v. Graham, 39 Mich. App. 109, 111 (1972); People v. Sumlin, 32 Mich. App. 1, 2-3 (1971); People v. Barron, 27 Mich. App. 379, 380 (1970); People v. Gaines, 27 Mich. App. 328, 330 (1970); People v. Anderson, 22 Mich. App. 61, 64 (1970); People v. Leflore, 20 Mich. App. 588, 589 (1969); People v. Jackson, 20 Mich. App. 414, 415 (1969); see also In re Valle, 364 Mich. 471, 475 (1961). II.

  2. People v. Barron

    27 Mich. App. 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    The facts show that while a bargain was apparently made, it was subsequently fulfilled and cannot now be grounds for vacating the guilty plea. People v. Kindell (1969), 17 Mich. App. 22, 23; People v. Jackson (1969), 20 Mich. App. 414, 415; People v. Leflore (1969), 20 Mich. App. 588, 589. Secondly, there is also no requirement in guilty plea proceedings that the trial judge must, sua sponte, inquire whether defendant had previously made an out-of-court statement.

  3. People v. Gaines

    27 Mich. App. 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    In his motion for withdrawal of the guilty plea and at the hearing the defendant asserted that he was innocent and had pled guilty only because he did not want to face a charge of robbery armed. A fulfilled promise of charge reduction is not grounds for vacating a guilty plea even if the plea was induced thereby. People v. Anderson (1970), 22 Mich. App. 61; People v. Leflore (1969), 20 Mich. App. 588; People v. Kindell (1969), 17 Mich. App. 22. After an extensive hearing, the trial court found that the plea was voluntary and the plea was made by defendant because he was guilty.

  4. Fill v. Arrow Wrecking, Inc.

    182 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)

    As a result, the defendant claims that no permission to sell was necessary and that no breach of contract occurred in that the sale to plaintiff was complete without the board's permission. Since these arguments were not raised at the trial court, they are not properly before this court and will not be considered. Faith United Church of Christ v. Westfield Topsoil Sand Co. (1969), 20 Mich. App. 588. As an alternative attack on the assignment clause, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that the board had not waived this provision.