People v. Bookmeyer, Docket No. 63418

• Decision Date: 15 September 1983
• Docket Number: Docket No. 63418
• Citation: 127 Mich.App. 69,338 N.W.2d 557
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus BOOKMEYER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 557

338 N.W.2d 557

127 Mich.App. 69

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus BOOKMEYER, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 63418.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted May 3, 1983.

Decided July 7, 1983.

Released for Publication Sept. 15, 1983.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., L. Brooks Patterson, Pros. Atty., Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., and John L. Kroneman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Barbara Jo Safran, Franklin, for defendant-appellant.

Before ALLEN, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and WALSH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On December 7, 1981, defendant pled guilty to breaking prison, M.C.L. Sec. 750.193; M.S.A. Sec. 28.390 and M.C.L. Sec. 791.265a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.2325(1), and was sentenced to six months to five years imprisonment to be served consecutively with the sentence he was serving when he escaped. Defendant appeals as of right, raising two issues.

Prior to the criminal proceedings a prison misconduct hearing was held pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 791.251 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 28.2320(51) et seq. The hearing officer found that defendant had returned late from his work release program to the resident home, contrary to the work release agreement. However, since he had returned within 24 hours he was not guilty of prison escape under the Department of Corrections' rules, but rather, was guilty of "being out of place". Defendant was given ten days in segregation for his violation of the Department's disciplinary rules.

Defendant first argues that the finding of the Department of Corrections' hearing officer, that defendant had committed the offense of being out of place rather than prison escape, estopped the prosecutor from charging him with the felony of breaking prison. Defendant primarily relies on the case of People v. Watt, 115 Mich.App. 172, 320 N.W.2d 333 (1982). In Watt, the defendant was convicted of welfare fraud based on her failure to inform the Department of Social Services that her ex-husband was residing with her. Prior to her conviction she had petitioned the Department of Social Services for an administrative hearing concerning the termination of her benefits. The hearing officer found in favor of the defendant, holding that there was insufficient evidence that her ex-husband was living in the house, and consequently the defendant was entitled to benefits. The Department of Social Services did not appeal the determination of the hearing officer. The Court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the relitigation of the factual issues determined at the administrative hearing.

The Watt decision is distinguishable from the present case in several respects. In Watt, the factual allegation that the defendant's husband was residing in the house was the primary issue in both the criminal and administrative hearings. This issue had been fully litigated at the administrative hearing and the state had had adequate time to prepare its case. The Court emphasized that its application of collateral estoppel was very limited, and ordinarily collateral estoppel would not be appropriate after an administrative hearing. Unlike the Watt case, in the present case defendant has not shown that the issue of defendant's escape was fully litigated. In fact, the provisions for the disciplinary hearing, M.C.L. Sec. 791.252; M.S.A. Sec. 28.2320(52) state that a hearing is to be held promptly and do not provide for normal evidentiary...