
    PEOPLE v. PALMER
    Appeal and Error — Preserving Question.
    Contention that complaint for larceny from the person was fatally defective was not preserved for appellate review, even if the allegation were meritorious, where timely objection was not made.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 599.
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Samuel H. Olsen, J.
    Submitted Division 1 September 22, 1970, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 7,825.)
    Decided October 26, 1970.
    Ernest Palmer was convicted of larceny from a person. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Owen J. Galligan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Ledwon, Gardner, & Grant, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: Quinn, P. J., and McGregor and Bronson, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction of larceny from a person, MCLA § 750.357 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.589), contending that error was committed at trial and in police procedure before trial, with respect to his identification as the perpetrator of the offense. A review of the record discloses that there was a direct eyewitness identification and ample- evidence connecting defendant with the crime alleged to support a conclusion of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant further contends that the complaint filed was fatally defective. We find this contention totally without merit, and, even if the allegation were meritorious, the record discloses that timely objection was not made to preserve the issue for appellate review. People v. Roney (1967), 7 Mich App 678; People v. Andriacci (1968), 11 Mich App 482.

Affirmed.  