People v. Bowns

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Bowns

197 N.W.2d 834, 39 Mich. App. 424, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1453

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1972

DocketDocket 11744

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 197 N.W.2d 834 (People v. Bowns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bowns, 197 N.W.2d 834, 39 Mich. App. 424, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1453 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Valkenburg, J.

Defendant pled guilty to escaping from prison MCLA 750.193; MSA 28.390, was sentenced from 1-1/2 to 5 years in prison, and appeals.

Defendant first contends that the February 15, 1971 order of forfeiture of his accumulated good time by the Department of Corrections amounted to double jeopardy, in that said forfeiture was entered because of his prison escape. Such a contention is without merit. In re Evans, 352 Mich 185 (1958); People v Wilson, 6 Mich App 474 (1967); People v Shastal, 26 Mich App 347 (1970).

Defendant also asserts that he was entitled to be sentenced for a definite term rather than to an indeterminate term; citing; People v Biniecki, 35 Mich App 335 (1971). While the Biniechi Court was correct in holding that MCLA 769.8; MSA 28-.1080 does not apply to the offense of escape from prison, it does not follow that an indeterminate sentence cannot be given. The Supreme Court in In re Wilson, 295 Mich 179, 184 (1940) held:

“The sentence for escaping from jail did not have to be indeterminate as it was a second offense.” (Emphasis added.)

The Court’s use of the phrase “did not have to be” rather than “could not be” clearly indicates that the sentence does not have to be indeterminate but could be if the trial court wished.

*426 The Attorney General’s office, in a formal opinion, determined that the sentence for prison escape could he either definite or indeterminate, as the trial court desired. OAG, 1947-1948, No 689, p 568 (February 4, 1948). In the years since the Wilson opinion and the Attorney General’s opinion, the Legislature has amended both sections of the indeterminate sentence act and the prison break statute. Since the Legislature has failed to act in the face of opinions, it must be assumed that the Legislature agrees that these opinions express the intent of the Legislature.

Since it was only necessary for the Binieoki Court to determine that a definite sentence was proper, to the extent that the Binieoki opinion appears to hold that an indeterminate sentence cannot be given upon conviction for escaping from prison, it is dicta and should be given no precedential effect.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

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

Van Valkenburg, J.

Defendant pled guilty to escaping from prison MCLA 750.193; MSA 28.390, was sentenced from 1-1/2 to 5 years in prison, and appeals.

Defendant first contends that the February 15, 1971 order of forfeiture of his accumulated good time by the Department of Corrections amounted to double jeopardy, in that said forfeiture was entered because of his prison escape. Such a contention is without merit. In re Evans, 352 Mich 185 (1958); People v Wilson, 6 Mich App 474 (1967); People v Shastal, 26 Mich App 347 (1970).

Defendant also asserts that he was entitled to be sentenced for a definite term rather than to an indeterminate term; citing; People v Biniecki, 35 Mich App 335 (1971). While the Biniechi Court was correct in holding that MCLA 769.8; MSA 28-.1080 does not apply to the offense of escape from prison, it does not follow that an indeterminate sentence cannot be given. The Supreme Court in In re Wilson, 295 Mich 179, 184 (1940) held:

“The sentence for escaping from jail did not have to be indeterminate as it was a second offense.” (Emphasis added.)

The Court’s use of the phrase “did not have to be” rather than “could not be” clearly indicates that the sentence does not have to be indeterminate but could be if the trial court wished.

*426 The Attorney General’s office, in a formal opinion, determined that the sentence for prison escape could he either definite or indeterminate, as the trial court desired. OAG, 1947-1948, No 689, p 568 (February 4, 1948). In the years since the Wilson opinion and the Attorney General’s opinion, the Legislature has amended both sections of the indeterminate sentence act and the prison break statute. Since the Legislature has failed to act in the face of opinions, it must be assumed that the Legislature agrees that these opinions express the intent of the Legislature.

Since it was only necessary for the Binieoki Court to determine that a definite sentence was proper, to the extent that the Binieoki opinion appears to hold that an indeterminate sentence cannot be given upon conviction for escaping from prison, it is dicta and should be given no precedential effect.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 N.W.2d 834, 39 Mich. App. 424, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowns-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack