*1 1981] v Moore
PEOPLE v MOORE 16, 1981, September Rapids.— 54878. at Docket No. Submitted Grand Decided December 1981. pled charge prison escape Charles E. Moore no contest to a after court Kalamazoo Circuit Court denied his motion to ground dismiss. The motion to dismiss was based on the prosecutor’s charge failure to act to jurisdiction divested the court of inappli- decide the case. The court found the rule to be cable, J., McCauley, Patrick H. and defendant was sentenced to two to five to be served to the term defendant was at the time of his Defen- appeals. dant Held: applies only concurrent sentences are When an offense is commit- during imprisonment, ted a consecutive sentence is mandated statute. The circuit court found that the rule did not divest it of over the case. J., dissented. He would reverse the trial court’s order that denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. He believes rule is to secure to state inmates their constitutional trial and that the majority’s holding unambiguous, express language alters the statute.
Opinion of the Court 180-Day Rule. rule in the statute which controls the time for person serving a criminal sentence was intended to the inmate’s sentencing applies concurrent and it offenses for to those [1, [3] 21A Am Jur 73 Am Jur 4 Am Jur 21 Am Jur 2d, Appeal 2d, 2d, References 2d, Criminal Law 857. Criminal Law 552. and Error 7. § for Points in Headnotes § § § op Opinion the Court possible; when an offense is sentences concurrent during imprisonment, consecutive sentence committed (MCL inapplicable statute and mandated *2 by Burns, T.M.
Dissent Speedy — — — Trial 180- Law Constitutional Day Rule. purpose rule in the statute controls person criminal a time for serving sentence is to secure (US Const, VI; speedy trial Am to a 1, §20, 780.131; MSA art MCL Const Judicial Construction. Appeals apply unambiguous to It is the function of Court Attorney Kelley, General, A. Robert Frank J. Gregart, Derengoski, General, James J. Solicitor Angela Prosecuting Attorney, Pasula, M. and As- Prosecuting Attorney, people. sistant for Baugh Laudenslager, Wickett, Bartl, Haslett, & appeal. P.C., on for defendant P.J., R. B. and T. M. Before: Burns JJ. Allen, pleaded Defendant no contest to Per Curiam:.
prison escape, 28.392, 750.195; MCL MSA and was sentenced to two to five served to be to the term that defendant appeals was at the time of the He by right, raising single issue: whether the 180- day carrying mandatory
offenses consecutive sentences. offering plea, Before his defendant moved to charge against arguing him, dismiss the prosecutor’s
failure to act divested the court People v Moore to decide the case. The court denied inapplicable. motion, agree We with the circuit court. In we Legislature held that the intended that the statute sentencing, an inmate’s apply only so it should
concurrent sentences were
We observed
during impris-
that when an offense is committed
onment, a consecutive sentence is mandated
statute, so the
rule will not
by applying
be served
it to such offenses.
rejected by
has been
some
including
panel.
Court,
one member of this
Marcellis,
(1981), People Anglin,
(1980), People Moore,
754, 760-762;
been followed in v Ew- ing, App (1980), 101 Mich People Grandberry, 102 Mich 302 NW2d 573 For the reasons discussed in progeny, panel and its two of this Loney represents believe the better rule. Accord- ingly, we hold that the circuit court 180-day found that the it rule did not divest of jurisdiction over the case. (dissenting). T. M. the As author of opinion People Moore,
this Court’s (1980), 754; 293 I the considered question persons of whether incarcerated in this state who commit crimes are entitled to the bene- they fits of the rule. I concluded that were persuaded and have not been that that view is incorrect. pur- mistakenly that the majority assumes concur-
pose to insure the of sentencing. Hill, 402 In rent (1978), Supreme Court 280; 262 NW2d was to rule found "secure right speedy incarcerated Persons trial”. as much institutions this state of
the various are not. those who trials as entitled to embodying Further, statute except in- not does 780.131; MSA provisions. Plain from its carcerated defendants persons applies language to all the statute charged In crimes. with Court carved exception rule on the basis into the an Legislature, intent of it found to be what sentenc- inmate’s an to ing. critically examined, it evident When opinion of the tail a situation involves the wagging dog. is, on the basis of That expressly legislative in the stated not intent of statute, expressed lan- altered the this Court has guage that statute. unambig- apply function of this Court
It is the language plain uous Therefore, I this case. respectfully lower would reverse dissent and motion to that denied defendant’s court’s order dismiss.