People v. George, 84.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 84.,84. |
| Citation | 318 Mich. 329,28 N.W.2d 86 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. GEORGE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; Joseph A. Gillis, judge.
Alex George was convicted of taking indecent liberties with a seven year old girl and placed on probation. From an order revoking the probation, the defendant appeals.
Order set aside and defendant remanded for entry of correct order of probation.
Before the Entire Bench.
John A. Hamilton, of Detroit, for appellant.
James N. McNally, Pros. Atty., for Wayne County, and Robert Newton Smiley and Herbert Burdick, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for appellee.
Defendant, Alex George, was charged with and pleaded guilty to the crime of taking indecent liberties with a seven year old girl. Before sentence, his case was referred by Judge Gillis to the Probation and psychopathic Division of Recorder's Court. On October 10, 1945, the trial court placed defendant on probation for three years and ordered him to move out of the neighborhood. On January 14, 1946, defendant was brought before Judge Gillis and sentenced for alleged violation of probation to the State prison at Jackson for a minimum term of five years and a maximum term of ten years.
On February 13, 1946, defendant, through his counsel, filed a motion to set aside the sentence of January 14, 1946. On April 4, 1946, an order was entered setting aside the sentence and granting a rehearing.
On April 17, 1946, defendant was again brought before Judge Gillis and charged by the court with violation of his probation as follows:
‘1. Not moving into the country, away from the neighborhood in which there were children, as he was told by the Court.
‘2. Failure to take treatment from a private psychiatrist.
Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and urged that said grounds of violation were illegal and void because not made a part of defendant's sentence on October 10, 1945, or at any subsequent time by an amended order of probation. The trial court after hearing some testimony found defendant guilty and again sentenced him to prison for a period of five to ten years with credit to be allowed for the time he served under his former sentence.
The record shows that on October 29, 1945, the court instructed the defendant in chambers that he move into the country and away from a neighborhood in which there were children; and that he take treatment from a private psychiatrist and bring a report from the doctor once a month. These instructions were not made in the form of a written order nor dictated to a reporter for the record, but were given in the presence of a deputy officer of the Recorder's Court.
The prosecuting attorney agrees with defendant that the oral unrecorded instructions upon which Judge Gillis based his finding of violation of probation were not legal orders of probation.
Certain statutory terms of probation are a part of every sentence. Section 17373, 3 Comp.Laws 1929, Act No. 308, Pub.Acts 1931, Comp.Laws Supp. 1940, § 17373, Stat.Ann. § 28.1133, provides:
‘(1) That the probationer shall not, during the term of his probation, violate any criminal law of the state of Michigan, or any ordinance of any municipality in said state;
‘(2) That he shall not, during the term of his probation, leave the state without the consent of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Peterson, Docket No. 19746
...it could be the entire five years in state's prison or something in between.'3 We have examined cases such as People v. George, 318 Mich. 329, 28 N.W.2d 86 (1947), and People v. Sutton, 322 Mich. 104, 33 N.W.2d 681 (1948), which we found helpful to a limited degree. However, they are distin......
-
State v. McGinnis
...the terms of his probation. On appeal he argues any unwritten conditions placed on his probation would be void, citing People v. George, 318 Mich. 329, 28 N.W.2d 86 (1947). The claim proceeds from the absence of showing defendant had notice when he was placed on probation that he should not......
-
Avalos v. State, 44972
...so as to foreclose possible disputes in the future. See Campbell v. State, 420 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Cf. People v. George, 318 Mich. 329, 28 N.W.2d 86 (1947), where a revoked probation was reinstated when the probationer was not properly informed of his probation The legislativ......
-
Hill v. Hill, 37.
...cannot be construed as complying with these requirements. The defect may be corrected by the entry of an amended order. People v. George, 318 Mich. 329, 28 N.W.2d 86. Other questions to which counsel have referred in their briefs have been considered and found to be without substantial meri......