People v. Johnson
Decision Date | 05 March 1980 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 78-4881 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shirley JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Durant, Kalamazoo, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James J. Gregart, Pros. Atty., Judy A. H. Hughes, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BRONSON, P. J., and ALLEN and MAHER, JJ.
The defendant appeals as of right from a plea-based conviction of larceny in a building, M.C.L. § 750.360; M.S.A. § 28.592. She was sentenced to a term of 2 to 4 years in prison, to be served consecutively with her sentence on a prior conviction.
The instant charge stems from an incident which occurred while the defendant was serving a sentence at a community corrections center program. Ms. Johnson was on her way to a laundromat to do her wash. She stopped at the Family Foods market. Although she had sufficient money, she took laundry detergent worth less than $3 and put it in her purse, not intending to pay for it. Ms. Johnson was apprehended before she left the store.
On appeal, the defendant contends that she was not "incarcerated" at the time the instant crime was committed, so that the consecutive sentencing statute, M.C.L. § 768.7a; M.S.A. § 28.1030(1), was erroneously applied.
M.C.L. § 768.7a; M.S.A. § 28.1030(1) provides for mandatory consecutive sentences for offenses committed by a prisoner or an escapee, as follows:
There are no cases which specifically construe a community corrections program as being a penal or reformatory institution within the ambit of this statute. However, statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose should be construed to be in pari materia. Wayne County v. Dep't of Social Welfare, 343 Mich. 475, 479, 72 N.W.2d 200 (1955). Thus, the statute which deals with prison escape, M.C.L. § 750.193; M.S.A. § 28.390, may be read in pari materia with the provisions of M.C.L. § 768.7a; M.S.A. § 28.1030(1). Section 2 of the escape statute, which has since been amended to include a community residential center, 1 defines a "prison" as follows:
"(2) The word "prison" as used in this section shall include any Michigan state prison, penitentiary, reformatory, state house of correction, camp constructed and maintained under the provisions of Act No. 274 of the Public Acts of 1949, as amended, being section 798.351 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, or any penal camp, except probation camps or probation recovery camps, and shall further include the grounds, farms, shops, road camps or places of employment operated by such institution or under control of the officers thereof, or the department of corrections, or of any police officers of this state, or of other persons authorized by the department to have prison inmates under their care, custody or supervision, either in an institution or outside an institution, whether for the purpose of work or medical care or otherwise."
In People v. Strong, 53 Mich.App. 620, 219 N.W.2d 804 (1974), a YMCA corrections program was found to be a prison for purposes of the escape statute. In People v. Smith (On Rehearing), 89 Mich.App. 478, 280 N.W.2d 862 (1979), a hospital was held to be within the scope of the escape statute. It would subvert legislative intent ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Armisted
...program and a community corrections program can constitute prisons within the meaning of the escape statute. People v. Johnson, 96 Mich.App. 84, 87–88, 292 N.W.2d 489 (1980); People v. Strong, 53 Mich.App. 620, 624, 219 N.W.2d 804 (1974). While these definitions may provide some evidence of......
-
People v. Hegwood, Docket No. 52480
...participating in a community corrections program is "incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution". People v. Johnson, 96 Mich.App. 84, 292 N.W.2d 489 (1980), People v. Mayes, 95 Mich.App. 188, 290 N.W.2d 119 (1980). The same logic applies in this case. The fact that an individual is ......
-
People v. Sanders
... ... Jennings, 121 Mich.App. 318, 329 N.W.2d 25 (1982); People v. Mayes, 95 Mich.App. 188, 290 N.W.2d 119 (1980), or while assigned to a community corrections program, People v. Shirley ... Johnson, 96 Mich.App. 84, 292 N.W.2d 489 (1980), or where a person is on extended furlough, People v. Lakin, supra ... We believe that this Court justifiably relied on the holdings in the consecutive-sentencing cases in deciding People v. Hegwood, supra. Defendants in People v. Hegwood ... ...
-
People v. Stewart
...held for naught merely because the second sentence is consecutive rather than concurrent. To the extent that People v. Shirley Johnson, 96 Mich.App. 84, 88, 292 N.W.2d 489 (1980), holds to the contrary, we disagree with that We therefore amend defendant's sentence to credit him with the 190......