TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Coffeen

In the Matter of Esther Coffeen

In re Coffeen, 38 Mich. 311 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 30, 1878
Citations
38 Mich. 3111878 Mich. LEXIS 68
Headnotes
Error lies to review a conviction. ■ The validity of a conviction is to be passed upon on a writ of error, and not on an application for the writ of habeas corpus.
Summary
Habeas corpus.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The petition shows that the petitioner was convicted, and so far as appears, regularly convicted of arson and sentenced to the State Prison. This writ is applied for on the ground that by § 8165 of the Compiled Laws, all women convicted of offenses punishable theretofore in the State prison (except murder) should be sentenced to confinement in the Detroit house of correction for such term of years as the court should deem just.

This is a common law proceeding and does not come under the statute, which in certain cases makes the writ *312 of habeas corpus a writ demandable of right. It is not usual to make this writ perform the duty of a writ of error, and it should not be allowed to have that effect where the ends of justice would be endangered by it.

As the conviction in this case was in due course of law, it is a question involving very serious consideration whether the sentence is one which cannot be rectified by a new sentence, in case it is found that the statute has the effect of annulling the first sentence, which is also a question not to be lightly passed upon.

If the applicant should be finally found entitled to go at large, it will be upon an error founded on no meritorious ground. Upon habeas corpus, if it should turn out there is no valid sentence, we could not render any judgment which would operate directly upon the judgment below. We shall not pass, therefore, upon its validity until we have it before us on writ of error, when every consideration can be examined properly, and complete justice done so far as the law will enable us 4o do it.

Petition refused.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1884–1885: 11896–1897: 11900–1901: 11904–1905: 11910–1911: 11918–1919: 11928–1929: 11946–1947: 118842026peak 1884 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. Hess91 Ind. 424 (1884)
  2. Goodman v. Daly, Warden165 N.E. 906 (Ind. 1929)
  3. Koepke v. Hill60 N.E. 1039 (Ind. 1901)
  4. In re Joseph173 N.W. 358 (Mich. 1919)
  5. In re Butler101 N.W. 630 (Mich. 1904)
  6. In re Maguire72 N.W. 15 (Mich. 1897)

Most recent

  1. Murphy v. Lacey21 N.W.2d 897 (Iowa 1946)
  2. Goodman v. Daly, Warden165 N.E. 906 (Ind. 1929)
  3. In re Joseph173 N.W. 358 (Mich. 1919)
  4. In re Forscutt133 N.W. 315 (Mich. 1911)
  5. In re Butler101 N.W. 630 (Mich. 1904)
  6. Koepke v. Hill60 N.E. 1039 (Ind. 1901)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list