
    PEOPLE v. DEMSON
    1. Criminal Law — Preliminary Examination — Attorney and Client — Plea of Guilty — Waiver.
    Acceptance of a plea of guilty was not precluded because defendant was not represented by counsel at the preliminary examination because any defects in the preliminary examination are waived upon the entry of a plea of guilty.
    2. Criminal Law — Sentence—Maximum Sentence — Discretion— Appeal and Error.
    The trial court has wide discretion in imposing a sentence and an appellate court does not have supervisory control over the punishment where a sentence is within the maximum provided by statute.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 485 et seq.
    
    Court’s duty to advise or admonish accused as to consequences of plea of guilty, or to determine that he is advised thereof. 97 ALR2d 549.
    [2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 533 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Genesee, Elza H. Papp, J.
    Submitted Division 2 June 10, 1970, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 7,292.)
    Decided June 30, 1970.
    Eoss J. Demson was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of indecent liberties with a child under the age of 16 years. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Mark Turpén, for defendant on appeal.
    
      Before: McGregor, P. J., and Bronson and Mahinske, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant, Ross Demson, was charged with two separate criminal counts. Count one was for statutory rape, CL 1948, § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788) and count two was for indecent liberties. CL 1948, § 750.336 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.568). On November 7, 1967, defendant pled guilty to taking indecent liberties and count one was dismissed. Complainant was 15 years old. On January 15, 1968 defendant received a sentence of from seven to ten years.

On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:

One: Should the court have accepted a guilty plea when defendant had not been represented by counsel at his municipal court examination?

Two: Should the court have accepted a guilty plea when defendant was not free on bond?

Three: Was the sentence prejudicial and excessive?

Absence of counsel at a preliminary examination does not preclude the acceptance of a guilty plea.

Michigan courts have determined that any and all alleged defects in the preliminary examination are waived upon the entry of a guilty plea. People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131; People v. McCurtis (1969), 19 Mich App 353, 355.

The record indicates, and defendant concedes, that defendant at the time of the plea acceptance was in fact out on bond. This issue is without merit.

CL 1948, § 750.336 (Stat Ann § 28.568) provides a maximum penalty of ten years.

When a sentence is within the maximum provided by statute, the trial court has wide discretion and an appellate court does not have supervisory control over the punishment. People v. Pate (1965), 2 Mich App 66, 68; People v. Doran (1967), 6 Mich App 86, 88.

The present record discloses no allegation of innocence or patent miscarriage of justice in the acceptance of the guilty plea. People v. Winegar (1968), 380 Mich 719, 733.

Affirmed.  