People v. Clabin
Decision Date | 13 July 1981 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 65138 |
Citation | 307 N.W.2d 682,411 Mich. 472 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Allen CLABIN, Defendant-Appellant. 411 Mich. 472, 307 N.W.2d 682 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Edward J. Grant, Pros. Atty., and John L. Wildeboer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Saline, for the people.
State Appellate Defender by P. E. Bennett, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, while an inmate in prison, stabbed another prisoner. After plea bargaining, he pled guilty to a charge of possessing a weapon while an inmate contrary to M.C.L. § 800.283; M.S.A. § 28.1623. On appeal he argues that his conviction is invalid because the language of M.C.L. § 800.283; M.S.A. § 28.1623 which has applicability to this case had never been properly re- enacted after this Court declared it unconstitutional in People v. Stanton, 400 Mich. 192, 253 N.W.2d 650 (1977). We agree with the defendant and we reverse his conviction.
In People v. Stanton, we declared that the 1972 amendment of 1909 P.A. 17 was unconstitutional and therefore void. The amendment provided:
"A convict without authorization, shall not have on his person or under his control or in his possession any weapon or other implement which may be used to injure any convict or other person, or to assist any convict to escape from imprisonment." 1972 P.A. 105.
The basis for our decision in People v. Stanton was our conclusion that the Legislature, in enacting the amendment, had violated the title-object limitation in Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24 1 because the title of 1909 P.A. 17 did not embrace the scope of the 1972 amendment and the amendment did not alter the act's title.
In 1977 P.A. 164, the Legislature sought to cure this defect by amending the title of 1909 P.A. 17 to include the following language: "to prohibit the control or possession by a convict of all weapons or other implements which may be used to injure any convict or person or in assisting any convict to escape from punishment". However, the Legislature did not re-enact the 1972 amendment.
The defendant argued in the Court of Appeals that his conviction was invalid because the 1972 amendment, rendered void by this Court's decision in People v. Stanton, was never re-enacted. The defendant further contended that the Legislature's attempted re-enactment by amending only the title violated Const. 1963, art. 4, § 25 which provides:
The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant's contentions. People v. Clabin, 97 Mich.App. 340, 294 N.W.2d 266 (1980). The Court reasoned:
When this Court declared the 1972 amendment of 1909 P.A. 17 to be unconstitutional, the amendment was rendered void and ceased to be of any effect. While the reason for this Court's decision was that the title of 1909 P.A. 17 was deficient, it was the law as embodied in the 1972 amendment which was voided, and not the title of the act.
Amendment of the title of an act, after a declaration of unconstitutionality of a portion of the act itself, no matter what the reason for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Kemp, 66666
...this Court having issued an order to show cause why defendant's conviction should not be reversed on authority of People v. Clabin, 411 Mich. 472, 307 N.W.2d 682 (1981), and the prosecutor's response having been considered by the Now, therefore, it is ordered that the request for review be ......
-
People v. McKinney, 66752
...and, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the defendant's conviction. People v. Clabin, 411 Mich. 472, 307 N.W.2d 682 (1981). ...