Lane, In re
| Decision Date | 20 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 1302,No. 1,1302,1 |
| Citation | 138 N.W.2d 541,2 Mich.App. 140 |
| Parties | In re Edgar Elton LANE, Plaintiff. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Albert Best, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C. J., and QUINN and WATTS, JJ.
On reading and filing of plaintiff's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus, an order was issued requiring the Michigan department of corrections, bureau of pardons and paroles, to show cause on November 4, 1965 why a writ should not issue. Oral arguments were presented.
The detained party for whose benefit the said writ was sought is Edgar Elton Lane. Lane was arrested on a federal charge on May 12, 1965 and was imprisoned in the Wayne county jail. On May 13, 1965 and Michigan department of corrections filed a detainer with the Wayne county authorities charging Lane with a parole violation. He had been on parole from the State Prison of Southern Michigan since August, 1963. On September 17, 1965 Lane posted a $1,000 bond and was released from custody of the federal court. However, he was immediately returned to Wayne county jail by the Michigan department of corrections on the charge of parole violation. On the same day a writ of habeas corpus was issued in the circuit court for the county of Wayne. A hearing was had on the writ on September 20, 1965 and Lane was discharged on the grounds that the Michigan department of corrections had not acted pursuant to C.L.S.1961, § 791.240 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.2310).
On September 21, 1965, Lane's attorney and an assistant attorney general were called in by the trial judge who had ordered Lane's release and a rehearing was held without the prisoner being present. At this time the writ was ordered dismissed and Lane was remanded to custody. Lane was removed by the Michigan department of corrections to the State Prison of Southern Michigan on September 22, 1965 and has been incarcerated there since that date. An appeal from the circuit court order was filed with this Court on September 24, 1965 and is presently pending.
At the hearing to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued, it was determined from presentations by counsel for Lane and by the assistant attorney general that more than 30 days had elapsed since the Michigan department of corrections filed a detainer with the Wayne county authorities accusing Lane of a violation of his parole, and also more than 30 days had elapsed since Lane was returned to prison and no formal parole violation hearing has been held. It was not argued that the warrant for commitment was defective. The assistant attorney general advised the court and the attorney for Lane did not dispute that within 20 days after confinement at the prison Lane was allowed to plead to the charge of parole violation at which time he pled not guilty and a formal hearing was set for November 17, 1965.
No testimony in this cause was ordered taken as the court did not feel that any of the matters asserted would affect the final decision of the question before this Court.
Counsel for Lane argued that the effect of C.L.S.1961, § 791.240 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.2310) constitutes a statute of limitations, and that failure to hold said hearing within 30 days of either filing of the detainer by the Michigan department of corrections, or within 30 days after having been remanded to the custody of the Michigan department of corrections, effectively bars the authorities from taking further action upon the alleged parole violation. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Department of Corrections
... ... § 791.240a(1). The panel further opined that habeas corpus relief was appropriate on the basis of this Court's order granting such relief to an alleged parole violator in In re Lane, 377 Mich. 695, 387 N.W.2d 912 (1966), after a Court of Appeals panel had determined that a writ of mandamus was the appropriate remedy for the failure to hold a timely parole violation hearing. 10 However, the panel urged this Court to reconsider Stewart and Lane: ... In ... ...
- Lane v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, Parole Bd.
- Lane, In re