
    PEOPLE v. GONIWICHA
    Criminal Law — Pre-Sentence Report — Examination by Depend-ant — Discretion.
    Failure of defendant’s counsel to have a copy of the pre-sentence report did not constitute error where counsel never requested to see the report because even if a request had been made, the granting of the request was within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 303.
    Appeal from Oakland, James S. Thorburn, J.
    Submitted Division 2 February 1, 1971, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 9491.)
    Decided February 25, 1971.
    Roger Ernest Goniwicha was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of attempted possession of narcotics. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Thomas G. Plunkett, Prosecuting Attorney, and Frank R. Knox, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Gerald M. Lorenee, for defendant.
    Before: Quinn, P. J., and McGregor and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

Originally charged with possession of narcotics, MOLA §335.153 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.1123), defendant, on February 6, 1971, pleaded guilty to an added count of attempted possession of narcotics, MOLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28-.287). He was sentenced and he appeals as of right.

Defendant contends it was error for his counsel not to have a copy of the pre sentence report. There is no indication in the record that a request was ever made by defense counsel to have or to see the presentence report. Additionally, if such a request had been made, the furnishing of the presentence report to defense counsel is a matter of judicial discretion. People v. Malkowshi (1970), 25 Mich App 195.

The sentence imposed by the trial court was within statutory limits and there is no basis for defendant’s present attack on that sentence. People v. Girard (1969), 18 Mich App 593. Defendant’s present contention that he pleaded guilty under duress because he feared that his commitment under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act for a prior offense would prejudice his right to a fair trial is without merit.

Affirmed. 
      
       MCLA § 762.11 et seq. (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.853 [11] et seq.).
      
     