People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 09 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | 24356,Docket Nos. 24355 |
| Citation | 250 N.W.2d 508,72 Mich.App. 702 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tom JOHNSON, Defendant, and Allied Fidelity Corporation, a/k/a Midland Insurance Company, and Edith M. Rasberry, agent-surety, Defendant-Appellant. 72 Mich.App. 702, 250 N.W.2d 508 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[72 MICHAPP 703] Jackson & Logan by Benjamin H. Logan, II, P.C., Grand Rapids, for Allied and Johnson.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald A. Burge, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BRONSON, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
This case arises out of the following facts stipulated by the parties herein involved.
'On January 19, 1970 the Principal-Defendant, Tom Johnson, was charged by complaint and warrant with having sold the narcotic drug Heroin contrary to law on January 17, 1970.
'Upon motion of the Principal-Defendant bail was reduced on February 17, 1970 to the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars. On March 10, 1970 recognizance was furnished by the Stuyvesant Insurance Company as Surety, through Allied Fidelity Corporation a/k/a Midland Insurance Company as general agents and Edith (Beasley) Rasberry as executing agent.
'On October 21, 1971 the Principal-Defendant failed to appear for his duly scheduled and noticed Circuit Court jury trial. A Bench Warrant was issued for his apprehension and the recognizance bond was forfeited.
[72 MICHAPP 704] 'During November, 1970 the Principal-Defendant was arrested in Kalamazoo County on other charges and released. At this time the executing agent informed the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court Clerk's office that the Surety desired to be released from the bond. No formal petition to the Court for release was made by the Surety.
'A hearing to show cause by the Surety was scheduled for December 6, 1971 with notice and proof of service upon the executing agent. No representative of the Surety appeared at the show cause hearing. Judgment was awarded in the full amount of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars to the People of the State of Michigan against the Surety.
'On December 8, 1971 a proposed judgment was mailed with proof of service to the executing agent. Said proposed judgment was not approved or returned.
'On December 29, 1971 notice of entry of judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 522 was mailed with proof of service to the executing agent. Judgment was entered against the Surety on January 3, 1972.
'On June 12, 1972 a hearing was held in the Circuit Court on the Surety's motion to set aside the judgment. The Surety's motion was denied by the court.
'On July 17, 1972 the Principal-Defendant was incarcerated in the St. Joseph County jail pending charges in that county. This information was discovered by the Surety sometime in August, 1972.
'On October 10, 1972 the Surety paid the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars to the People of the State of Michigan in satisfaction of the judgment.
'On or about November 1, 1972 the Principal-Defendant entered Jackson Prison under the name of Calvin Braswell, as a result of conviction in St. Joseph County.
'On September 19, 1973 a hearing was held in the Circuit Court on the Principal-Defendant's motion for bond remittance. Said motion was denied by the Court as not being brought by the proper party, in that the Surety should petition for remittance, not the Principal-Defendant.
'On November 5, 1973 a hearing was held in the Circuit Court on the Surety's motion for bond remittance.[72 MICHAPP 705] The Surety's motion was denied by the Court on the basis that MCLA 765.15; MSA 28.902 does not apply to surety bonds collected after judgment. An order to that effect was entered by the Court on December 6, 1973.
'On or about December 19, 1973 the Surety filed a Claim of Appeal, from the Circuit Court's denial of the Surety's motion in this Honorable Court. The Claim of Appeal was returned to the Surety by this Honorable Court on December 21, 1973 as being a matter of leave to appeal and not an appeal as of right.
'On July 5, 1974 an order Nolle Prosequi was entered dismissing the criminal charge against the Principal-Defendant on the basis that (sic) of his conviction and sentence in St. Joseph County.
On July 23, 1975, our Court granted leave to appeal. The single issue raised concerns the interpretation of M.C.L.A. § 765.15; M.S.A. § 28.902.
Chapter 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the procedures for bail in Michigan. We begin our analysis with section 12 of that chapter which states:
'In any criminal cause or proceeding where bond or bail of any character is required or permitted for any purpose, the party or parties required or permitted to furnish such bail or bond may deposit, in lieu thereof, in the manner herein provided, cash, certified check on any state or national bank in this state, obligations of the United States government negotiable by delivery or bonds of any municipality of this state negotiable by delivery, equal in amount to the amount of the bond or bail so required or permitted.' M.C.L.A. § 765.12; M.S.A. § 28.899.
[72 MICHAPP 706] The following section sets out the procedures to be followed in deposition such cash, check or security. M.C.L.A. § 765.13; M.S.A. § 28.900. This deposit is to be treated by the court as equivalent to bond or bail. M.C.L.A. § 765.14; M.S.A. § 28.901. Section 15 is the statute here in question. It provides '(a) If such bond or bail be forfeited, the court shall enter an order upon its records directing, within 45 days of the order, the disposition of Such cash, check or security, and the treasurer or clerk, upon presentation of a certified copy of such order, shall make disposition thereof. The court shall set aside the forfeiture and discharge the bail or bond, within 1 year from the time of the forfeiture judgment, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section if the person who forfeited bond or bail is apprehended and the ends of justice have not been thwarted and the county has been repaid its costs for apprehending the person.
'(b) If such bond or bail be discharged, the court shall enter an order to that effect with a statement of the amount to be returned to the depositor. Upon presentation of a certified copy of such order, the treasurer or clerk having such cash, check or security shall pay or deliver the same to the person named therein or to his order.
'(c) In case such cash, check or security shall be in the hands of the sheriff or any officer, other than such treasurer or clerk, at the time it is declared discharged or forfeited, the officer holding the same shall make such disposition thereof as the court shall order, upon presentation of a certified copy of the order of the court.' M.C.L.A. § 765.15; M.S.A. § 28.902. (Emphasis supplied.)
Appellant contends that the word 'security' found within the above statute encompasses surety bonds, and that therefore the $5,000 paid by appellant should be remitted.
Statutes which pertain to the same subject matter or which have a common purpose Are in pari [72 MICHAPP 707] materia. They are to be read together and construed as constituting a single law. County of Wayne v. State Department of Social Welfare, 343 Mich. 475, 479--480, 72 N.W.2d 200 (1955), Van Antwerp v. State, 334 Mich. 593, 605, 55 N.W.2d 108 (1952), Rathbun v. State, 284 Mich. 521, 543--545, 280 N.W. 35 (1938). Within chapter 5 there are seven statutes (sections 12--18) which deal with the same subject matter, that is, the 'deposit of cash, certified check or certain securities in lieu of bond or bail.' Accordingly, we interpret the statutes in connection with each other. Section 12 sets out the types of securities included within the heading 'certain securities' which may be deposited. These are, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calvert v. Lapeer Circuit Judges, Docket No. 113725
...As the dissent notes, a surety bond is a "contract between the government and the principal and surety." People v. Tom Johnson, 72 Mich.App. 702, 707, 250 N.W.2d 508 (1976). The circuit court has the power to regulate and ensure compliance with the bond contract and has jurisdiction over th......
-
People v. Evans
...decision of another panel of the Court of Appeals which held that Sec. 15 did not apply to commercial surety bonds. People v. Johnson, 72 Mich.App. 702, 250 N.W.2d 508 (1976). After considering arguments from counsel on Kozy's motion of February 23, 1987, the trial court entered an "amended......
-
Forfeiture of Sur. Bond, In re
...whereby the surety promises that if the principal defaults, the surety will pay the judgment on the bond. People v. Johnson, 72 Mich.App. 702, 707-708, 250 N.W.2d 508 (1976). Where a principal defaults by failing to appear, a surety is authorized to arrest and deliver the principal to the j......
-
People v. Pavlak, Docket No. 77-1926
...filed and served a new petition for remission. At this time, the trial court denied the petition, based upon People v. Johnson, 72 Mich.App. 702, 250 N.W.2d 508 (1976). Although the trial judge recognized that the surety had been prejudiced by his inconsistent rulings in that it had release......