*1 PEOPLE v HASTINGS 9, 1984, February Lansing. Submitted at Docket No. 70861. Decided July 1984. Hastings Douglas on C. was convicted his J., Court, Noble, receiving Jackson Circuit Russell E. concealing property more than $100 stolen with a value of being appealed. Held: an habitual offender. Defendant facility, even 1. Since defendant was held a local detention him, though parole against an he hаd a hold filed he was not meaning penal of a institution of the state within the inmate prison requiring that of a inmate Accordingly, days. within 180 defendant is not enti- commence proseсuted tled to a on the basis that he was not dismissal 180-day period. within despite 2. its 1979 amend- stolen brought proscription a who ment which within its conceals, possesses encompаss pro- still does not within its scription goods. the defendant the thief who stole the Since during admitted his recital of the factual basis that he was thief, concealing receiving and hе could not be convicted of property. Reversed. J., dissented. He would hold that
amendment that the evidences obvious intent goods. applies statute now He would the thief stole affirm.
Opinion of the Court 180-Day — — 1. Criminal Law Paroled Prisoners Rule. period 180-day statutory controls the time for com- mencing prosecution against prison a inmate on [2, [1] 66 Am Jur 59 Am Jur 3] 21A Am Jur 50 Am Jur 2d, 2d, Rеferences 2d, 2d',Larceny Pardon and Parole 102. Receiving Criminal Law 849 et § 80. Transporting Points § § in Headnotes seq. Property §§ pa- respect applicable outstanding to а is not With warrants being locally for a crime commit- prisoner who is detained roled against parole parole has whom a hold been ted while on (MCL seq.). seq.; 780.131 et MSA 28.969[1] et filed *2 — Rеceiving 2. Law. Criminal Stolen Goods goods, after its concerning stolen even statute proscription a its to include within amendment property, to must still construed possesses stоlen or conceals they property have stolen conceal the thieves who exclude 28.803). (MCL750.535;MSA J. Dissent — Receiving 3. Law. Goods Criminal concerning receiving stolen to amendment possesses proscription one who or goods its to include within property evidences an intent conceals stolen goods can now be convictеd under who stole the thief possessing concealing those statute for 28.803). (MCL 750.535; MSA General, Louis J. Kelley, Frank J. Attorney Grant, Caruso, J. General, Edward Prose- Solicitor Greenleaf, A. Chief Joseph cuting Attorney, and people. for the Appellate Attorney, Crawford), Mardi (by State Defender Appellate on appeal. for defendant R. P.J., H. C. Before: and J. Cynar, Gillis JJ. Anderson,* to pleaded Defendant Per Curiam.
charge 28.803, $100, 750.535; MSA with a value over MCL offender, MCL being and to an habitual term prison He to a MSA 28.1083. was sentenced right. years appeals to ten as seven charges Defendant seeks a dismissal comply against him on the basis of failure * assignment. sitting Appeals by judge, the Court of Circuit on App 136 Mich 780.131 et seq.; with the rule of MCL 180-dаy 28.969(1) seq. et him grant We decline to such parole relief. Defendant was on at the time of his arrest, A parole placed June hold was on following again day, defendant on June 1982. Defendant’s was taken on December 29, 1982, 183 days parole after the second hold was placed.
However, this Court has determined against individual detained a local facility, filed, parole whom a hold has is not been "an penal inmate of a institution of this state” protection whom the rule 180-day applies. Rose, 656; NW2d 774 People Wright, (1984); NW2d 93 issues,
Dеfendant raises four other one of which requires plea-based that we reverse his conviction. *3 In reciting a factual basis for his to receiving concealing property, defen- dant indicated he that had committed the theft.
The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that under Michigan’s scheme statutory thieves are punished for a thief not larceny; may be con victed receiving and concealing property he has People v Kyllonen, stolen. 402 Mich 262 2 NW2d prosecution
The
Kyllonen
insists that
is no lon
ger good law in the
subsequеnt
wake of a
amend
ment adding "possesses” and "conceals” to the list
of prohibited
conduct
in MCL
11,
28.803. 1979 PA
effective March
by
Reliance
this Court upon the rule announced in
Kyllоnen has been
uncritical,
appears
and it
that
prosecution’s
argument has not thus far been
Price,
People
v
addressed.
App
See
126 Mich
lv den 417 Mich
654-655;
(1983),
born out of lia- escape pеrsons to serious permitted these marked statutory development was bility. refinements towards directed series of indi- is there an offenders. Nowhere conviction of these to be also was intended cation that could be thieves provision under which alternative convicted.” 402 Mich 144. the addition perceive
We do not and "con- "possesses” of the words *4 scope an intent to broadеn signals ceals” tradition- group of offenders beyond in the change significant Such a targeted. ally made so have been thrust would not statutory subtly. App 136 496(1) Code, contains
Californiа Penal § to MCL MSA 28.803. counterpart state’s * * * 496(1) at one who "buys Section is directed * * * conceals, sells, or aids in receives withholds withholding”. concealing, selling (Emphasis sup- emphasizеd language, similar to that plied.) in could arguably found our amended However, Supreme the California reach the thief. Court has said: proscribing receipt of stolen "The stаtute '* * * knowingly is directed at those who deal with thieves and with their stolen after the theft has words, it
been committed.
traditional
ground
In other
is directed at
"fence” and at those who lurk in the back-
provide
in
ways
of criminal
order to
thieves
depository
a market or
for their loot. Such
with
are
erty prohibited by
offenses
essentially
prop-
different from the actual
theft of
* *
legislature
section 484
*. If the
had intended
to embrace concealment of
[§ 496]
thief,
property by the
it
stolen
simple
would have been a
say "every
any
mаtter
thief or
other
* * *
* * *
conceals,
may,
etc.’
A defendant
course,
crimes,
charged
with both
it
but
is for the
trier of fact to determine whether he is
as a thief
withholding.’ [People
оr as a non-thief of
Tatum,
183-184;
Rptr
v
209 Cal
2d
25 Cal
(1962).]”
Jaramillo,
752, 758;
16 Cal 3d
129 Cal
306;
Rptr
Recognizing that its decision could result diffiсulties for the if defendant’s status uncertain, as the thief was provided practical some suggestions addressing these difficulties. See Mich 148-150. This brief passage required reading prosе- should be at *5 385 by Gillis, J. J. H. Dissent not issues need remaining The office. cutor’s addressed.
Reversed. I believe (dissenting). dissent. I J.
J. H. 750.535; MSA to MCL 1979 amendment the "possesses” 28.803, the words which added "conceals”, Kyllo- overruled effectively Kyllоnen nen, Mich NW2d dealt with: "* * * unique question of statu- single narrow and Legislature MCL the enacted interpretation: When
tory alia, 28.803, proscribes, inter 'aid- * * * * * * property’, concealment of ing] in the under provide an alternate statute it intend to did which to case a net of criminal convicted; only did it intend or thieves could be persons who liability over of stolen others in the concealment assist thieves or property?” Kyllonen, (Footnote omit- supra, pp 139-140. ted.) the 1979 prior to as worded Based on the statute construed amеndment, strictly Court Supreme the prop- thieves who conceal to exclude however, later, erty they year have stolen. One statute, changing thereby Legislature amended in wording Supreme relied on invalidating and, opinion, my stat- Further, in that case. since analysis amended, we frequently lightly utes are not Kyl- in time between ignore proximity cannot assumе that the amendment lonen and the words adding nothing by meant cited commentary and "conceals”. "possesses” CJI, Commentary, Ch 26 majority opinion, in the conclu- supports this p also Property, sion. worded, longer is no presently as 136 Gnus, J. Dissent
consistent with the historical development of the in Kyllonen. crime outlined The everyday under- standing language presently employed the statute now includes the person who commit- See Kyllonen, supra, p 145. larceny. ted the I would affirm.