
    PEOPLE v. HATFIELD
    Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Examination by Court — Sufficiency.
    The trial court is not required to hold an extraordinary examination to determine why a defendant pleads guilty when the defendant has received no concession from the prosecuting attorney in return for the plea, because the court need only determine the voluntariness and the truthfulness of the plea before it can be validly accepted (GCR 1963, 785.3[2]).
    Appeal from Wayne, Horace W. Gilmore, J.
    Submitted Division 1 January 5, 1971, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 10163.)
    Decided January 28, 1971.
    Daniel Bruce Hatfield was convicted, on bis plea of guilty, of breaking* and entering* an office building with intent to commit larceny. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Garnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting* Attorney, for tbe people.
    
      Jeffrey N. Shillman, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and Fitzgerald and V. J. Brennan, JJ.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 484 et seq.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from his conviction upon a plea of guilty to the offense of breaking and entering an office building with intent to commit larceny. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). Since that was the crime with which he was originally charged, he now claims that the trial judge was obligated to conduct an extraordinary examination under CCR1963, 785.3 (2) to ascertain why defendant was pleading guilty without obtaining some concession from the prosecutor. The people have submitted a motion to affirm his conviction.

The plea transcript discloses that defendant was represented by counsel at the time he entered his plea, that he denied the presence of any promises or threats, and that he affirmatively expressed a desire to plead guilty to the offense with which he was charged. Upon these facts, it is manifest that the issue defendant presents is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm is granted.  