In re Coffeen

38 Mich. 311, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 68
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 30, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 38 Mich. 311 (In re Coffeen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Coffeen, 38 Mich. 311, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 68 (Mich. 1878).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition shows that the petitioner was convicted, and so far as appears, regularly convicted of arson and sentenced to the State Prison. This writ is applied for on the ground that by § 8165 of the Compiled Laws, all women convicted of offenses punishable theretofore in the State prison (except murder) should be sentenced to confinement in the Detroit house of correction for such term of years as the court should deem just.

This is a common law proceeding and does not come under the statute, which in certain cases makes the writ [312]*312of habeas corpus a writ demandable of right. It is not usual to make this writ perform the duty of a writ of error, and it should not be allowed to have that effect where the ends of justice would be endangered by it.

As the conviction in this case was in due course of law, it is a question involving very serious consideration whether the sentence is one which cannot be rectified by a new sentence, in case it is found that the statute has the effect of annulling the first sentence, which is also a question not to be lightly passed upon.

If the applicant should be finally found entitled to go at large, it will be upon an error founded on no meritorious ground. Upon habeas corpus, if it should turn out there is no valid sentence, we could not render any judgment which would operate directly upon the judgment below. We shall not pass, therefore, upon its validity until we have it before us on writ of error, when every consideration can be examined properly, and complete justice done so far as the law will enable us 4o do it.

Petition refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Murphy v. Lacey
21 N.W.2d 897 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1946)
Goodman v. Daly, Warden
165 N.E. 906 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1929)
In re Joseph
173 N.W. 358 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
In re Forscutt
133 N.W. 315 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
In re Butler
101 N.W. 630 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)
Koepke v. Hill
60 N.E. 1039 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1901)
In re Maguire
72 N.W. 15 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Smith v. Hess
91 Ind. 424 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Mich. 311, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-coffeen-mich-1878.