People v. Moore

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Moore

314 N.W.2d 718, 111 Mich. App. 633

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 1, 1981

DocketDocket 54878

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 314 N.W.2d 718 (People v. Moore) 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. Moore, 314 N.W.2d 718, 111 Mich. App. 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam:.

Defendant pleaded no contest to prison escape, MCL 750.195; MSA 28.392, and was sentenced to two to five years in prison, to be served consecutively to the term that defendant was serving at the time of the escape. He appeals by right, raising a single issue: whether the 180-day rule, MCL 780.131; MSA 28.969(1), applies to offenses carrying mandatory consecutive sentences.

Before offering his plea, defendant moved to dismiss the charge against him, arguing that the prosecutor’s failure to act to bring the prison escape to trial within 180 days divested the court [635]*635of jurisdiction to decide the case. The court denied the motion, finding the 180-day rule inapplicable.

We agree with the circuit court. In People v Loney, 12 Mich App 288; 162 NW2d 832 (1968), we held that the Legislature intended that the statute protect an inmate’s right to concurrent sentencing, so it should apply only to those offenses for which concurrent sentences were possible. We observed that when an offense is committed during imprisonment, a consecutive sentence is mandated by statute, so the purpose of the 180-day rule will not be served by applying it to such offenses.

Loney has been rejected by some members of this Court, including one member of this panel. People v Marcellis, 105 Mich App 662; 307 NW2d 402 (1981), People v Anglin, 102 Mich App 118; 301 NW2d 470 (1980), People v Moore, 96 Mich App 754, 760-762; 293 NW2d 700 (1980). Loney has been followed recently, however, in People v Ewing, 101 Mich App 52; 301 NW2d 8 (1980), and People v Grandberry, 102 Mich App 769; 302 NW2d 573 (1980). For the reasons discussed in Loney and its progeny, two members of this panel believe Loney represents the better rule. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court properly found that the 180-day rule did not divest it of jurisdiction over the case.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:.

Defendant pleaded no contest to prison escape, MCL 750.195; MSA 28.392, and was sentenced to two to five years in prison, to be served consecutively to the term that defendant was serving at the time of the escape. He appeals by right, raising a single issue: whether the 180-day rule, MCL 780.131; MSA 28.969(1), applies to offenses carrying mandatory consecutive sentences.

Before offering his plea, defendant moved to dismiss the charge against him, arguing that the prosecutor’s failure to act to bring the prison escape to trial within 180 days divested the court [635]*635of jurisdiction to decide the case. The court denied the motion, finding the 180-day rule inapplicable.

We agree with the circuit court. In People v Loney, 12 Mich App 288; 162 NW2d 832 (1968), we held that the Legislature intended that the statute protect an inmate’s right to concurrent sentencing, so it should apply only to those offenses for which concurrent sentences were possible. We observed that when an offense is committed during imprisonment, a consecutive sentence is mandated by statute, so the purpose of the 180-day rule will not be served by applying it to such offenses.

Loney has been rejected by some members of this Court, including one member of this panel. People v Marcellis, 105 Mich App 662; 307 NW2d 402 (1981), People v Anglin, 102 Mich App 118; 301 NW2d 470 (1980), People v Moore, 96 Mich App 754, 760-762; 293 NW2d 700 (1980). Loney has been followed recently, however, in People v Ewing, 101 Mich App 52; 301 NW2d 8 (1980), and People v Grandberry, 102 Mich App 769; 302 NW2d 573 (1980). For the reasons discussed in Loney and its progeny, two members of this panel believe Loney represents the better rule. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court properly found that the 180-day rule did not divest it of jurisdiction over the case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 N.W.2d 718, 111 Mich. App. 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moore-michctapp-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack