*1 64.1 v. PEOPLE HAYNES.
Opinion of the Court. Appeal Speedy 1. Trial —Ju- Review-able — Questions Error — risdiction. Whether or not defendant speedy had been denied a trial on charging possession information him unlawful with sale and hy person heroin, an unlicensed is not determined where finding guilty him eharge court on such is found to have respect had of defendant with thereto time trial at (Const 2, 1908, 19; 1961, 335.152, conducted art CLS §§ 780.131). Prosecuting Attorney Department 2. Criminal Law — —Notice of Corrections Relative to Untried Information. prosecuting attorney in originated a which in his charged duty keep up with a his own records notify proceedings date and of corrections of prose- relative to prisoner untried information a if the cutor receiving is desirous of notice from rela- thereto, tive expeeted since the could not he prosecutor something knowledge notice of without it (CLS 1961, 780.131). was desired 3. Same —Trial on Untried Demand— Warrant —Failure Waiver. upon according prison Statute in defendant indictment right to demand trial next after ex- at term of court [4] [5] [6] [2] [1] [3] 42 Am 5 Am Jur 21 Am Jur 21 Am 50 Am 21 Am Jur Prosecuting Attorneys Jur Jur, Jur, 2d, References 2d, 2d, 2d, Statutes Appeal Criminal Law Criminal Law Criminal Law §§ §§ and Error for Points §§ §§ §§ 249, §§ 897, 898, in 249. 253. 310. 19, Headnotes 20. 953. Mich Ann imprisonment piration from time of of months was not applicable prison, pos- on to defendant who was conviction of heroin, 23 months before session of for some later was had eharge possession imposition and. sale resulted sentence, hence, 20-year his failure to demand a trial on *2 rights not constitute a waiver of his the untried warrant did (CLS 1961, 335.152, 335.153; 767.38). CL §§ 4. Same —Trial on Warrant —Jurisdiction. Untried try Trial eourt was without defendant on untried eharge capsules possession of and sale of 7 of heroin some 23 imprisonment eharge pos- after of defendant on of months capsules requiring 2 session of of heroin view of statute 180 on untried warrants within after information is con- veyed attorney place imprisonment prosecuting of of of 335.152, person imprisoned (CLS 1961, 335.153, 780.131, §§ 780.133).
Dissentinq Opinion. J.
Quinn,
oe Act.
Statutes —Construction—Title
5.
provision
a statute must be construed
connection with
of
general purpose
(Const
as set
in the title
the act
forth
of
5, SI).
art
Warrants.
6. Criminal
Law' —Statutes—Untried
object
dispose
Statute which stated as its
it was to
of
warrants,
indictments,
informations,
complaints
untried
penal
inapplicable
held,
inmates
institutions
of
given
corrections
stat-
situation where
had
utory
place
imprisonment
prosecuting
notice to
against whom an untried warrant had been issued
of defendant
(CLS
780.131-780.133).
1961, §§
Genesee;
(Louis D.),
from
Appeal
McGregor
J.
at Detroit.
Division
June
Submitted
Leave
(Docket
1.)
No.
Decided
January
denied
December
appeal
Supreme Court
evening February one 3,1960, James Melson went to the home of Haynes, the defendant, Maurice John city purchased capsules in the of Flint. Melson heroin from the defendant and then left premises for a rendezvous with two from officers squad. the narcotic February At a.m. 12:10 squad, 1960, the officers the narcotic accom- panied by police other officers, went to the defend- ant’s home where he was arrested and searched, capsules of heroin were confiscated from his person. headquarters. complaints police The defendant was taken then *3 February separate 5, 1960,
On two warrants were and issued the charged pos- defendant. One an unlawful sale and by person capsules session an unlicensed of 7 heroin1 on the based information furnished the nar- by cotic bureau B. James Melson and the «other complaint charged pos- and warrant an unlawful by person capsules an session unlicensed of 2 heroin, first based on offense,2 the narcotics taken person. from the defendant’s
Preliminary were and the defendant was examinations conducted on each February on 15, 1960, the over to Genesee circuit court for bound trial complaint. charges Eight forth in on the set each arraigned defendant later was on infor- each and stood mute. The court then entered a mation plea guilty on' behalf of the defendant in each not (Stat (Stat 1961, §18.1122). §18.1123). Aim 335.152 335.153 1957 Rev 1957 Rev CLS OLS § § 1961, Ann Ann 64Í. op Opinion the Court. withdrew October defendant case. On plea previously gnilty entered the case the not capsules possession charged 2of of heroin pled guilty. 1960, the defend- December and On years to 10 im- to a term ant was sentenced 5i . possession charge. prisonment While the on apparently was clear, record is not the defendant day following day that taken to the State Michigan. December On Prison Southern corpus issued a writ of habeas ordering the return of the circuit court Genesee defendant from Mich- the State Prison of Southern standing purpose igan ing trial on the remain- for charged possession. and case which sale Michigan of the Prison of Southern warden State writ return to the which certified a written filed ill travel stand the defendant was too at that time. corpus July writ of ad 1961, a habeas On recipiendum was and the et issued deliberandum returned to Genesee defendant was Michigan. de- Prison of Southern Because State poor physical agree- condition, fendant was prosecutor was reached between assistant ment be that the matter continued counsel and defense adjourned concurred, The court term.” “over was returned to and the defendant the State the case August Michigan. On 26, 1963; of Southern Prison September 16, 1963; and November prosecutor appeared in circuit court and assistant obtained each “over time the term” continuance physical poor of the condition defendant. due the defendant was of these three occasions each On present two last occasions his coun- *4 present. not was sel February was the defendant returned 18,1964,
On county pursuant to a writ of habeas to Genesee corpus On Feb- and trial commenced. nonjury a 645 People v. Opinion op the Court. completed ruary and the charged guilty found as in the infor- defendant was February 24, 1964, the defendant was mation. On years imprisonment to a term of of 20 sentenced and life. This later conviction basis for this sentence forms appeal. allega- Defendant raises 6 decision, of reversible but in view of our tions error unnecessary it will be each of them. rule We question do reach the constitutional of whether speedy a denied trial within the defendant was meaning Michigan since we Constitution,3 of the pertinent find that statute controls issue here. raised (Stat § 1961, is 780.131 Ann
The statute CLS 28.969[1]).4 Supp § Thus, whenever the 1965 Cum any department notice of of corrections receives information, warrant, indictment, or untried brought against pending it is must be inmate whom days 180 after the within causes to trial request disposition a for final notice and written attorney prosecuting to the delivered be pending. county the warrant where is Supreme People Michigan decisions, Court Two (1963), and 370 Mich 357 v. Castelli Hendershot plus opinion (1959), general5 attorney the intent have construed of the right shall have the every prosecution, the accused “In criminal 19, currently public 1808, art speedy trial.” Const a 1, 20. art Const of corrections shall receive notice “Whenever any warrant, indictment, pending in this state untried there is any complaint setting forth inmate of a for which a information penal prison offense institution this be state a criminal conviction, might imposed upon such inmate shall sentence after brought to trial within of cor be prosecuting shall cause to be delivered to rections warrant, indictment, such information or com pending place plaint imprisonment notice written request disposition for final warrant, such inmate and indictment, of such complaint.” information 5 OAG, No 3124. *5 Apr 5 op Opinion the Court. applicability gen of the statute. and opinion eral’s states: physical “If the inmate suffers or mental dis- ability being after returned to institution, it is upon
then incumbent of corrections promptly notify prosecuting attorney parties other interested of such fact.” The warden’s return to writ 1960 certified prisoner that the was too ill to travel trial stand at that time. However, the record does not disclose any whether the of corrections had knowledge place events which took on June 21, 1961, when the defendant was returned to Genesee county to stand and the continuance on that date was ordered. People supra,
In v. Hendershot, the issue before the Court involved the construction of the words “brought to trial” as used in the and the statute, page Court stated at 304: * * * apparent good-faith “If action is taken period people proceed well within the and the promptly dispatch and with thereafter toward readying trial, case for the condition of the statute for the retention court’s met.” period
Since the time at issue in the case at bar is People prec- months,6 v. Hendershot no furnishes edent for the instant case. People supra, Castelli,
In v. the defendant was charge Wayne county incarcerated one when, charging on November 2, 1960, second warrant county him with another crime in Oakland period computing 23-month is arrived at the time from day (September 17, 1961) first the new term after the order of August 26, continuance was entered on June when the court until again continuing entered an.order the matter “over the term.” Opinion op the Court. Although issued. corrections notice to the failed to Oakland prose there was obvious excuse for cuting attorney, defendant was delivered until failure. The this “had not expired 1961. The 180 March *6 Oakland 24, 1961, pros the when, August county on proceedings.” commenced ecuting attorney of the corrections have Did Query: of disposition 1961 the case? notice of the June the continuance, department’s of the it had notice If have to tolled the statute. cannot be said nonaction sets forth clearly attorney general’s opinion The the of corrections that requirement office prosecutor’s “posted” keep the duty has circumstances. under such condition the inmate’s on i.e., duty that it was taken, view is If the other making active keep by case prosecutor of letter warden’s inquiries, the appropriate ,7 medical affidavit of the August 1965 “August 11, 1965 Sordyl “Eugene E. Attorney at Law 1010 Beach Street Michigan Flint, Haynes, John “He: Maurice #104237 Sordyl: “Bear Mr. your August I our reply 9. will ask medical in letter of “This is Haynes report on which will be forwarded to for a medical director Haynes has been been you Our records show as as available. soon February, he has 1961. Most of that time us since with unemployable He was released on eourt order for medical reasons. day. again next He was released and returned the on June February 17, 1964, February and returned on on on eourt order 1964 with additional sentence. attorney eounty wrote on prosecuting “The of Genesee December asking present for information on the condition of Mr. history a his condition and the that he He commented on heart fact We would the be able to stand because this condition. wrote prosecuting on December that our medical director Haynes proceedings Mr. would be able to felt that any attend court without prosecutor’s certainly to his undue risk health. office must copies correspondence in I in have of this its files. don’t find the files correspondence prosecutor’s any other inquiring office about App Opinion op the Court. or8
direct both indicate a lack of any follow-up by the prosecuting attorney. if Therefore, depart ment corrections knew of the continuance of 21, 1961, the department’s June failure to give the notice statutory cannot be held to have tolled the statute defendant’s detriment.
If the of corrections did not have knowledge the disposition of the on case June 21, it course, could not, required statu- tory notice the county prosecuting attorney. The affidavit previously stated discussed that the medical records indicate that no made inquiry was concern- ing report Haynes’ a status heart; and, further, that had a writ of issued, habeas been he corpus would have been prosecutor returned. originated certainly his Haynes’ course, inquiries Mr. condition. Of such could been have made other means. truly “Very yours, George Kropp A. /s/ *7 George Kropp A. Warden. “GAK-las” op Michigan 8 ) “State op County Jackson Jss‘ undersigned “Now comes and states unto this the Honorable Court as follows: employee “1. That he an Prison for Southern is the State in Mich- igan, Jackson, Michigan, charge and is of the medical records of Haynes. John Maurice “2. That he has examined medical records the for Maurice John Haynes #104237. Haynes “3. That medical the records of Maurice John indicate that September 10, 1963, from Haynes June 1961 to Maurice John was physically Plint, Michigan, able to return to present to be at the pending against ti'ial Mm. “4. That the inquiry, medical records indicate no either written oral, or was directed to the medical for director the State Prison requesting report a medical Haynes. status for Mauriee John “5. That Haynes the records indicate that Mauriee John would have been returned to the Genesee authorities from June [1961?], September 1962 of habeas upon presentation to 1963 a of a writ corpus for properly upon his return served the warden of the State Prison. D, P. W. Barthomc, M. /s/ Medical Director” Opinion of the Court. up keep duty charged his records to own to with pro- give notice of the date ceedings to receiving information is if he desirous pros- department pursuant thereto. If the from the give necessary ecutor did not follow that the it would information, subsequent expected him to notice.. be could not good procedures statutory followed; were not produced; excusing omission was for this cause jurisdiction9 was without to therefore, hear the court charge judgment and its on the second subject reversal. It would thereon is entered point; opinion possible at this how to end this be people we answer their shall in fairness ever, relating applicability argument of CL 28.978).10 pros (Stat § § 1954 Rev Ann 767.38 authority propo for this as ecution cites statute duty demand defendant has the that the sition pending and, absent such information, trial on the delay. right complain demand, a The statute waives his unambiguously applies situation, to one prison an indictment. the defendant in where People (1933), 261 Mich relied on v. Foster pris people, dealt with a situation where the factually out on and hence is distin bail, oner was guishable case. It is certain that instant prison was in and that there an was defendant in him, he was not “held indictment but that, forth sec- the event within the time limitation set “In act, for this action is not commenced on the matter tion any made, request disposition no court this state shall for thereof, warrant, in- longer nor shall the untried have effect, dictment, complaint any further force information he dismissing prejudice.” and CLS court the same with shall enter an order (Stat Supp 28.969[3]). 780.133 Ann 1965 Cum shall, “Every person prison upon if held indictment he it, expiration *8 require he tried at next term of eourt after imprisoned, 6 months from time he or he bailed when was shall upon recognizance, appear his own unless it shall to the satisfac people tion have of the court that the witnesses on behalf of the been kept away, prevented attending enticed or and are detained by sickness, court aceident.” inevitable some App Mich Opinion op the Court.
prison prison an indictment” but rather was in serving he was because time for conviction on an- charge. other Therefore, it cannot be said that failure defendant to amake demand is rights pre- waiver of his under the circumstances simply sented in the instant case. The statute is inapplicable to the case at bar. supra, §
Pursuant to CLS 1961, 780.133, the court was without to hear the case on the charge. second judgment
The conviction and entered thereon is accordingly reversed. J., concurred with H. P. J. J.
Fitzgerald, Gillis, (dissenting). agree J. I am unable to Quinn, opinion Judge with the and result it Gillis interpret for reaches the reason I cannot the stat- opinion support ute1 as his does, nor do I find for interpretation his in the cases2 and the general’s opinion3 Judge it cites. "While Gillis’ opinion precedent concedes Hendershot is not for at I bar, believe the it reason is not is question presented pre- because the here was not presented sented Hendershot nor it in Gas- opinion attorney general telli. of the is not question. opinion directed to that That was in response department inquiry to an from the director responsibilities
of corrections as to the
of that
under the statute to
assist
formulating procedure
comply
way
opinion
with the statute.
In no
does
outstanding
involve the effect of the statute on an
charging
penal
information
an inmate of a
insti-
(Stat
CLS
Supp
780.131
Ann 1965
28.969[1]).
Cum
2 People v. Hendershot
(1959),
v. Cast
(1963),
elli
Const than one object, “No law shall embrace more expressed (Similar which shall be vision in its title.” pro- 1963, art 4, 24.) Const The of a be construed in provisions statute must the general connection with as set forth purpose in the v. Asta Mich (1953), title'. 590. The title the act before us of is: warrants,
“An to of indict dispose act untried complaints against inmates ments, informations of of state.” 4 penal institutions this The untried purpose charges against to dispose is penal pro- inmates of institutions. The method vided this accomplish disposi- by legislature charges tion is over these jurisdiction to deny if action on them not commenced any court is such the department within 180 after charges days to the prose- of corrections to be delivered causes Ap- requisite involved the notice. cuting attorney that failure of legislature believed parently, official to after 180 proceed the prosecuting that was not prosecution indication was reasonable by and the should be charges disposed desired denial, await, than for- rather The., attorney. prosecuting mal dismissal charges of accumulation untried fact thereby is understandable. created problem changes arise from office could accumulation either the prosecut- attorney, of the prosecuting in-the-office, oversight, personnel ing-attorney Aim 1965' (CLS No 177 780.131-780.133 PA §§ [Stat Supp Cum 28.969(l)-28.969(3)]).—Kepokter.. §§ App Dissenting Opinion by Quinn, J. problem neglect. files,
lost even is: unless dispose prosecuting does one acts, how gives charges? The statute these answer, purpose assigned by Judge it and its opinion, purpose expressed rather but Gtllis’ in its title. application viewed, the statute Thus has no *10 depart- the ment before us since it is conceded the corrections never caused to be delivered prosecuting attorney required by to the the notice I the statute. vote to affirm. other issues raised defendant were not majority opinion, in the
discussed and there would purpose discussing in be no them in this dissent.
PEOPLE woos. Eelony—Eight Criminal Law — Counsel —Due Process. import Supreme of 1963 decision of Court of the United any felony qiroseeution States in which an accused is represented by counsel, expressly and does not waive bene- counsel, requirements fit of does not fulfill of a “fair (US trial” and is a denial of process Const, thus due 14). Am Eelony Eight 2. Same — Prosecution — to Counsel —Time. Eight any felony prosecution, counsel expressly unless waived, applies prosecutions as well before 1963 decision Supreme Court of the confirming right United States such prosecutions as to after such decision. Deferences for Points Headnotes 2d, 21 Am Jur Criminal 319; Law [1-3] 16 Am Jur §§ 2d, Constitutional Law §