People v. Hendershot
| Decision Date | 12 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 348,348 |
| Citation | 98 N.W.2d 568,357 Mich. 300 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth HENDERSHOT, Defendant. Motion |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
James S. Bicknell, III, Pros. Atty., Clare, for the People.
Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, Grand Rapids, Robert B. Linsey and Dale M. Strain, Grand Rapids, of counsel, for defendant.
Before the Entire Bench.
In January, 1951, defendant was convicted of manslaghter and sentenced to be imprisoned from 14 years 11 months to 15 years. On April 16, 1951, on complaint filed, a warrant issued charging him with unlawfully having carried a concealed weapon and a detainer was filed against him with prison authorities.
On June 14, 1958, the department of corrections caused a notice to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney, pursuant to P.A.1957, No. 177 (C.L.1948, as amended, § 780.131 et seq. [Stat.Ann.1957 Cum.Supp. § 28.969(1) et seq.]), requesting that action be taken toward final disposition of the untried concealed weapons charge.
On October 23, 1958, the prosecuting attorney, by means of a writ of habeas corpus, caused defendant to be returned from prison to the county jail. On that date defendant was arraigned before the justice of the peace on the concealed weapons charge. On demand of the prosecuting attorney a preliminary examination was held on October 27, 1958, and defendant was bound over to circuit court. On October 29, 1958, the prosecuting attorney filed a petition in the circuit court for examination into the defendant's sanity. The court ordered that examination on November 3d and set the hearing for December 3, 1958. On the basis of medical reports, the court, on the latter date, granted the prosecuting attorney's motion to dismiss the sanity proceedings. On that same date defendant moved that the cause be remanded to the justice of the peace for further examination or, in the alternative, that the cause be dismissed for lack of showing of probable cause at the previous eximination. The court took these motions under advisement, awaiting briefs from counsel. On December 5th defendant's brief and on December 11th the people's brief were submitted. On December 18, 1958, defendant filed his petition for habeas corpus in this Court, contending that the circit court had lost jurisdiction of the case and that further action of the charge was barred under the mentioned statute. We permitted the writ of habeas corpus and ancillary writ of certiorari to issue.
Section 1 of the act provides, in part:
'Whenever the department of corrections shall receive notice that there is pending in this state any untried warrant, indictment, information or complaint setting forth against any inmate of a penal institution of this state a criminal offense for which a prison sentence might be imposed upon conviction, such inmate shall be brought to trial within 180 days after the department of corrections shall cause to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which such warrant, indictment, information or complaint is pending written notice of the place of imprisonment of such inmate and a request for final disposition of such warrant, indictment, information or complaint.'
Section 3 provides:
'In the event that, within the time limitation set forth in section 1 of this act, action is not commenced on the matter for which request for disposition was made, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried warrant, indictment, information or complaint be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.'
Defendant says that the 180-day period specified in the statute expired on December 12, 1958, that the defendant had not yet been 'brought to trial' as in section 1 provided, that, therefore, the trial court lost jurisdiction and defendant is entitled to dismissal of the complaint and warrant with prejudice, as provided in section 3. The people point to the language of section 3, requiring such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Frazier
...See, e.g., State v. Goff, 244 N.W.2d 579, 582 (Iowa 1976); State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1975); People v. Hendershot, 357 Mich. 300, 303-304, 98 N.W.2d 568 (1959); City of Cleveland v. Austin, 55 Ohio App.2d 215, 380 N.E.2d 1357, 1367 (1978). See also King v. State, 303 So.2d 38......
-
People v. Williams
...this Court's interpretation of the 180-day-rule statute in People v. Hill, 402 Mich. 272, 262 N.W.2d 641 (1978), People v. Hendershot, 357 Mich. 300, 98 N.W.2d 568 (1959), and dictum in People v. Castelli, 370 Mich. 147, 121 N.W.2d 438 (1963). We hold that this version of MCR 6.004(D) was i......
-
McCahan v. Brennan
...cases in which the Court's interpretation is longstanding but has been heavily eroded by subsequent rulings. That was the condition of People v. Hendershot,27 which I would have overruled in People v. Lown.28 The doctrine of legislative acquiescence weighed less heavily on the scales in Low......
-
People v. Walker
...18. Williams, supra at 259, 716 N.W.2d 208. 19. See MCL 780.131; Williams, supra at 259, 716 N.W.2d 208. 20. People v. Hendershot, 357 Mich. 300, 304, 98 N.W.2d 568 (1959). 21. See MCR 6.004, 1989 staff comment. 22. Williams, supra at 259, 716 N.W.2d 208. 23. Id. at 258 n. 5, 716 N.W.2d 208......