People v. Fisher
| Citation | 212 N.W. 70,237 Mich. 504 |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 153.,153. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. FISHER. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Macomb County; Neil E. Reid, Judge.
Maurice Fisher was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he brings error to review sentence imposed after violation of terms of probation granted him. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellant.
Wm. W. Potter, Atty. Gen., and James E. Spier, Pros. Atty., and John E. Merrill, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Mt. Clemens, for the People.
Defendant was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of a violation of the prohibition law, and, June 25, 1924, placed on probation for the term of three years. The probation order imposed mandatory statutory conditions and the court exercised a discretion, also authorized by statute, and required defendant to pay a fine of $300 and $100 costs within four months.
The statute (C. L. 1915, § 2031) relative to a uniform system of probation, and then in force, provided, that the court, in its discretion, might impose as a condition:
‘That he shall pay immediately, or within the period of his probation, a fine imposed at the time of being placed on probation.’
May 29, 1926, the court found defendant had violated the terms of his probation, revoked the order, and issued a bench warrant to bring him before the court. July 28, 1926, defendant was brought before the court, and, upon a hearing, was found to have broken the terms of his probation, and sentenced to a maximum term of one year, minimum of seven months, with a recommendation of seven months, in the state prison at Jackson.
Defendant reviews by writ of error, claiming the fine in the probation order constituted a sentence, and therefore the court could not thereafter sentence him to the state prison. Decision turns upon whether the fine, imposed as a condition, in the order of probation, constituted, in point of law, a final sentence.
Defendant points to the penalty of fine or imprisonment or both for his offense and claims the court adopted the penalty of a fine. He is mistaken. The scheme of probation is wholly of legislative determination, and somewhat in the nature of an evolution of suspension of sentence at common law. In providing a uniform system of probation, with discretion in the court to impose a fine as a condition, with power to revoke and sentence, the Legislature kept within its power. Under the statute an order of probation is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor
...1044 (1912) challenged the jurisdiction of the plea taking court and the constitutionality of the probation statute. People v. Fisher, 237 Mich. 504, 212 N.W. 70 (1927) raised the statutory interpretation question as to whether on revocation of probation the court could sentence to 7--12 mo......
-
People v. Pummer
...case, following conviction, until the court pronounces a sentence, which leaves nothing to be done but enforcement.' People v. Fisher, 237 Mich. 504, 506, 212 N.W. 70 (1927). Even earlier, Chief Justice Campbell 'But what are known as final orders are adjudications upon motions or other app......
-
People v. Pickett
...of imprisonment after violation of probation is the final judgment, order or decision. Defendant refers to People v. Fisher, 237 Mich. 504, 506, 212 N.W. 70 (1927). We quote therefrom as '. . . Under the statute, an order of probation is discretionary, tentative in nature and in no sense a ......
-
State v. Jones
...as a condition of probation, citing as additional authority Ex parte Hazlett, 137 Cal.App. 734, 31 P.2d 448 (1934); People v. Fisher, 237 Mich. 504, 212 N.W. 70 (1927); 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1618(8) (1961), and a subsequent decision by the Second District in Sanders v. State, 268 So.2d 5......