People v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 25 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 12100,2 |
| Citation | 42 Mich.App. 121,201 N.W.2d 341 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Arthur J. Tarnow, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Bruce A. Barton, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and BRONSON and TARGONSKI, * JJ.
Defendant, while an inmate at Jackson Prison, was stopped and searched by a prison guard for being out of his assignment area without a pass. The prison guard testified that he found an object concealed on the back of the defendant, which was described as a knife. The defendant then fled with the knife in his hand. During his flight, a corrections officer saw the defendant throw an object on top of an adjacent building. Two corrections officers proceeded to the roof of the building and discovered an object which was described as being a homemade knife with a taped handle. This was identified as being similar to the knife that had been on the defendant's person when he had been originally stopped.
Defendant was charged with violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424, carrying a concealed weapon. He elected to be tried by the court without a jury. The judge, in his findings, found the defendant guilty of the crime as charged and sentenced him to a minimum of one and one half years and a maximum of five years.
The first issue raised by the defendant is whether the trial court's failure to recite a specific finding as to the dangerous character of the knife found on the defendant was reversible error in violation of GCR 1963, 517.1.
There has been much controversy over the answer to this question. However, the Michigan Supreme Court has settled this issue by its holding in People v. Thomas, 387 Mich. 368, 197 N.W.2d 51 (1972). In Thomas, the Supreme Court specifically held that GCR 1963, 517.1 was not applicable to criminal cases, stating at p. 378, 197 N.W.2d at p. 56:
'In view of the historical nature of the criminal verdict and the safeguards against erroneous factual determinations embodied in the requirement that there be sufficient proof of each element of the crime, we hold that no special findings of fact are required in judge-tried criminal cases.
Therefore, in light of Thomas, the trial court did not err in failing to specifically find that the knife was a dangerous weapon.
The defendant further contends that he was subjected to double jeopardy since he was convicted and sentenced in a criminal action and suffered the withdrawal of accumulated 'good time' in an administrative action for the same crime.
There is nothing in the record to show that the defendant actually lost his 'good time' or, if he lost it, whether it was for this infraction. Furthermore, the defendant never raised this issue or made any objection in the trial court. Objections not raised at trial and not passed upon by the trial court are generally not considered on appeal. People v. Martin, 1 Mich.App. 265, 268, 135 N.W.2d 560 (1965); People v. Elliot, 322 Mich. 313, 316, 33 N.W.2d 811 (1948).
However, this Court had consistently held that the forfeiture of 'good time' in an administrative proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy. In order to violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy the double sentencing must occur in a criminal prosecution in a court of justice and not an administrative proceeding. People v. Shastal, 26 Mich.App. 347, 350, 182 N.W.2d 638 (1970); People v. Wilson, 6 Mich.App. 474, 477, 149 N.W.2d 468 (1967). The Court finds no error with regard to this procedure.
The defendant finally contends that the trial court erred in not granting him credit for the time he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Prieskorn
...Cohen, 35 Mich.App. 706, 192 N.W.2d 652 (1971). See, e.g., People v. Nieto, 122 Mich.App. 695, 333 N.W.2d 11 (1982); People v. Lewis, 42 Mich.App. 121, 201 N.W.2d 341 (1972); People v. Dorsey, 104 Mich.App. 528, 305 N.W.2d 257 (1981); People v. Andrews, No. 1, supra, 52 Mich.App. at 726-727......
-
People v. Tilliard
...served for both related or unrelated offenses. See People v. Donkers, 70 Mich.App. 692, 695, 247 N.W.2d 330 (1976); People v. Lewis, 42 Mich.App. 121, 201 N.W.2d 341 (1972); People v. Haines, 24 Mich.App. 240, 180 N.W.2d 107 (1970). In other cases, such credit has been disallowed. See Peopl......
-
Com. v. Sneed
...State v. Tise, 283 A.2d 666 (Me.1971); People v. Shastal, 26 Mich.App. 347, 349--350, 182 N.W.2d 638 (1970); People v. Lewis, 42 Mich.App. 121, 123--124, 201 N.W.2d 341 (1972); State v. Maddox, 190 Neb. 361, 362, 208 N.W.2d 274 (1973); State v. Millican, 84 N.M. 256, 501 P.2d 1076 (Ct.App.1......
-
People v. Patterson
...his plea of guilty. Conversely, defendant argues that People v. Hall, 19 Mich.App. 95, 172 N.W.2d 473 (1969), and People v. Lewis, 42 Mich.App. 121; 201 N.W.2d 341 (1972), require that credit be received for the period of detention between defendant's arraignment and sentencing, a total of ......