PEOPLE v. KUCHULAN | KL3M Data Gallery

Description

PEOPLE v. KUCHULAN

Core Metadata

source	https://static.case.law/
blake2b	b492befa2b2a2e333688c2cedaf8689704e25e2f5d2cd591195d893261dbb9d9f986aaa068b687fdb5ca07e3806c8e29d09f8abe9f5237eb369bc86eefb895ba
id	2095876
format	text/html
size	7012
dataset_id	cap
meta_url	/document/view?identifier=cap/2095876.json
download_url	/document/download?identifier=cap/2095876.json

Additional Metadata

JSON

              {
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 3526,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "percentile": 0.32232651401684037,
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08
    },
    "sha256": "bae486f0604cb9d2c3aa819dc1a7111e0e26bb270a1d982324411e2f12cf96fc",
    "simhash": "1:6707c6d2d1d84b53",
    "word_count": 568
  },
  "citations": [
    {
      "cite": "31 Mich. App. 280",
      "type": "official"
    }
  ],
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "cite": "386 Mich 762",
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "reporter": "Mich."
    },
    {
      "case_ids": [
        2047557
      ],
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich-app/17/0205-01"
      ],
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "cite": "17 Mich App 205",
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "reporter": "Mich. App."
    },
    {
      "case_ids": [
        2079623
      ],
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich-app/21/0150-01"
      ],
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "cite": "21 Mich App 150",
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "reporter": "Mich. App.",
      "year": 1969
    },
    {
      "case_ids": [
        2047617
      ],
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich-app/17/0187-01"
      ],
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "cite": "17 Mich App 187",
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "reporter": "Mich. App.",
      "year": 1970
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "id": 8979,
    "name": "Michigan Court of Appeals",
    "name_abbreviation": "Mich. Ct. App."
  },
  "decision_date": "1971-02-26",
  "docket_number": "Docket No. 9762",
  "file_name": "0280-01",
  "first_page": "280",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "id": 2095876,
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 49,
    "name": "Mich.",
    "name_long": "Michigan"
  },
  "last_page": "282",
  "last_page_order": 364,
  "last_updated": "2024-02-27T17:47:12.255813+00:00",
  "name": "PEOPLE v. KUCHULAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Kuchulan",
  "provenance": {
    "batch": "2018",
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard"
  }
}

Would you train on this document?

Document Viewer

text/markdown

#### PEOPLE *v.*KUCHULAN

1. Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Factual Basis — Court’s Examination — Truthfulness.

Trial judge’s failure to examine a guilty-pleading defendant at the plea-taking proceeding regarding the defendant’s participation in the crime charged is not necessarily fatal to defendant’s plea of guilty; the trial judge is required only to reasonably ascertain the truth of the guilty plea before accepting it.

2. Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Truthfulness—Factual Basis.

The truth of a plea of guilty is ascertained when the record discloses a substantial factual basis for it.

3. Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Factual Basis.

A substantial factual basis for defendant’s plea of guilty existed even though the defendant was not questioned at the plea-taking proceeding regarding his participation in the crime where tho preliminary examination transcript furnishes a substantial basis and where the defendant entered his plea during the second day of trial and just after a eodefendant was questioned regarding his participation in the offense.

Beference for Points in Headnotes

[1-3] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 484-496.

Appeal from Wayne, Richard M. Maber, J.

Submitted Division 1 January 12, 1971, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 9762.)

Decided February 26, 1971.

Leave to appeal denied October 20, 1971, 386 Mich 762.

John Kuchulan was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of aiding and abetting in the placing of an injurious substance with intent to destroy the prop*281erty of another. Defendant appeals.

People’s motion to affirm granted.

*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.

*Charles E. Raymond,*for defendant on appeal.

Before: Quinn, P. J., and McGregor and Bronson, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted, by his plea of guilty, of aiding and abetting in the placing of an injurious substance with intent to destroy the property of another, contrary to MCLA § 750.208 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.405). On appeal, the people move to affirm. GCB 1963, 817.5(3).

The only issue raised on appeal is whether defendant’s plea of guilty was properly accepted where the trial judge did not examine him to establish the crime and his participation therein. It is manifest that the question presented, on which decision of the cause depends, is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

The failure of the trial judge to examine defendant with reference to the crime and his participation therein is not necessarily fatal to the conviction. *People*v. *Seifert*(1969), 17 Mich App 187, *People*v. *Donald T. Moore*(1970), 21 Mich App 150. Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court is required to arrive at a reasonable ascertainment of the truth of the plea. *People*v. *Bartlett*(1969), 17 Mich App 205. The truth of a plea is ascertained when there appears from the record a substantial *282factual basis for it. In tbe present case, the transcript of the preliminary examination furnishes a substantial factual basis for the plea. In addition, defendant’s plea was entered during the second day of trial and just shortly after a codefendant was questioned as to his participation in the offense. The record in this case contains a substantial factual basis for the plea and the trial judge did not err by not examining defendant as to the crime and his participation therein.

Motion to affirm is granted.