People v. Birmingham, Docket No. 2108
Decision Date | 25 September 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 2108,1 |
Citation | 164 N.W.2d 561,13 Mich.App. 402 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie J. BIRMINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Herbert L. Harris, Harris, Stein & Hooberman, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and LEVIN and PRATT *, JJ.
On May 25, 1965, the defendant was charged in an information with assault with intent to murder 1 in Recorder's Court for the city of Detroit. On November 4, 1965, a jury found him guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder, 2 before Hon. John P. Scallen who sentenced him to 9 to 10 years in prison.
In the same case in a supplemental information, defendant was charged under the Habitual Criminal Act 3 of having been convicted of 3 other felonies prior to the last conviction. On March 16, 1966, in a jury trial, defendant was convicted under the supplemental information and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant in his appeal questions the constitutionality of the Habitual Criminal Act, particularly that portion (§ 769.13) that reads as follows:
'If at any time after conviction and either before or after sentence it shall appear that a person convicted of a felony has previously been convicted of crimes as set forth in any of the 3 foregoing sections, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which such conviction was had, In his discretion, may file a separate or supplemental information in such cause accusing the said person of such previous convictions.' (Emphasis supplied)
Defendant asserts that his conviction and sentence to life imprisonment under the act denied him the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The reason he gives is that the filing of the information under the Habitual Criminal Act by the prosecuting attorney is discretionary.
The act before the amendment made by P.A.1949, No. 56 read in part as follows:
'It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of the county in which such conviction was had to file a separate or supplemental information in such cause accusing the said person of such previous convictions.' (Emphasis supplied)
The former act was held to be constitutional in People v. Palm (1929), 245 Mich. 396, 401, 223 N.W. 67 and People v. Gunsell (1951), 331 Mich. 105, 111, 112, 49 N.W.2d 83. The Gunsell case was decided after the amendment was operative. While these cases dealt with a different constitutional question (i.e., Ex post facto legislation) from the question in the instant case, they are indicative of the constitutionality of the Habitual Criminal Act as previously challenged. Defendant asserts that the Habitual Criminal Act permits the prosecuting attorney, through the exercise of his discretion, to practice invidious discrimination among persons or groups. A similar argument was raised concerning the discretionary powers of a prosecuting attorney in selecting the crime for which a defendant was to be charged and prosecuted, in People v. Mire (1912), 173 Mich. 357, 138 N.W. 1066. Therein Mr. Justice STEERE stated in part on pp. 363, 364, on p. 1068 of 138 N.W., as follows:
The duties of a prosecuting attorney are set forth commencing at C.L.1948, § 49.153 (Stat.Ann.1961 Rev. § 5.751) which reads in part as follows:
'The prosecuting attorneys shall, in their respective counties, appear for the state or county, and prosecute or defend in all the courts of the county, all prosecutions, suits, applications and motions whether civil or criminal, in which the state or county may be a party or interested.'
A prosecuting attorney by the very nature of his duties is required to exercise discretion. 27 C.J.S. District and Prosecuting Attorneys § 10, p. 649 states:
We find that under the general rule just stated and under the laws of our State, a prosecuting attorney is required to exercise proper discretion in his duties, and this precludes his acting by reason of caprice or in such a manner as to result in invidious discrimination against persons or groups.
The defendant cites the cases of Griffin v. Illinois (1956), 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055; Cox v. Louisiana (1965), 379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471; and McLaughlin v. Florida (1964), 379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 as authority for the position that the constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection requires procedures in criminal trials which allow no invidious discrimination. We agree with these cases but fail to find them applicable to the case at hand.
There have been several cases more directly in point from other jurisdictions that indicate to the Court the constitutionality of the Habitual Criminal Act. In People v. Johnson (1952), 412 Ill. 109, 114, 105 N.E.2d 766, 768, it is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Potts
...The constitutionality of such act was upheld in People v. Palm, 245 Mich. 396, 223 N.W. 67 (1929).' In People v. Birmingham, 13 Mich.App. 402, 407--410, 164 N.W.2d 561, 563--565 (1968), this writer said: 'We find that under the general rule just stated and under the laws of our state, a pro......
-
People v. Evans, Docket No. 78-474
...the prosecutor may not exercise his or her discretion in a manner that would violate constitutional principles. People v. Birmingham, 13 Mich.App. 402, 407, 164 N.W.2d 561 (1968). The United States Supreme Court recognized this restraint on prosecutorial discretion in Bordenkircher v. Hayes......
-
People v. Bohm
...is in the sound discretion of the prosecuting attorney. People v. Lombardo, 301 Mich. 451, 3 N.W.2d 839 (1942); People v. Birmingham, 13 Mich.App. 402, 164 N.W.2d 561 (1968); People v. Eineder, 16 Mich.App. 270, 167 N.W.2d 893 The claim of defendant that the complaint, warrant, municipal co......
-
People v. Bewersdorf
...245 Mich. 396, 223 N.W. 67 (1929). See also In re Pardee, 327 Mich. 13, 41 N.W.2d 466 (1950) (double jeopardy); People v. Birmingham, 13 Mich.App. 402, 164 N.W.2d 561 (1968) (due process and equal protection); People v. Potts, 55 Mich.App. 622, 223 N.W.2d 96 (1974) (cruel and unusual Recent......