People v. Loukas

Full title: PEOPLE v. LOUKAS

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 26, 1970

21 Mich. App. 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)

174 N.W.2d 923

Opinion

Docket No. 5,930.

Decided January 26, 1970. Rehearing denied February 27, 1970. Leave to appeal denied September 22, 1970. 384 Mich. 757.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Joseph E. Maher, J. Submitted Division 1 January 5, 1970, at Detroit. (Docket No. 5,930.) Decided January 26, 1970. Rehearing denied February 27, 1970. Leave to appeal denied September 22, 1970. 384 Mich. 757.

Kyriacos Peter Loukas was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property over the value of $100. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Owen J. Galligan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Donald W. Grant, for defendant on appeal.

Before: LESINSKI, C.J., and J.H. GILLIS and QUINN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The issue on this appeal, which is from defendant's conviction and sentence for receiving and concealing stolen property over the value of $100,^_ is stated by defendant as: "Was the defendant denied the effective representation of counsel at his trial in this cause?"

_ MCLA § 750.535 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.803).

The basis for defendant's contention that he was denied effective representation by trial counsel is that failure of trial counsel to object to the admission in evidence of the stolen property on the strength of an alleged illegal search and seizure resulted in defendant's conviction. This Court has recently decided that such a contention is not the basis for holding that a defendant is denied the effective assistance of counsel in the constitutional sense. See People v. Degraffenreid (1969), 19 Mich. App. 702.

Defendant's reliance on People v. Ibarra (1963), 60 Cal.2d 460 ( 386 P.2d 487, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863), is misplaced. The property there seized was the product of warrantless arrest and a warrantless search. In the present case, defendant was arrested on a valid warrant and the stolen property was found in the automobile occupied by him at the time of arrest and search.

Affirmed.