TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Marion

In re Marion, 103 N.W. 512 (Mich. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 12, 1905
Docket
No. Calendar No. 21,100
Citations
103 N.W. 512140 Mich. 219
Headnotes
Criminal Law — Sentence and Punishment — Indeterminate Sentence Law. A sentence pronounced after, for a crime committed before, the indeterminate sentence law (Act No. 136, Pub. Acts 1903) took effect is to be considered as though that law had never been enacted, and so considered is not invalid because for the maximum and minimum of five years, the maximum sentence provided for the particular crime, nor does it deprive the prisoner of the benefit of the previously existing statutes respecting “good time” in prison.
Summary
Habeas corpus proceedings by Charles Marion to obtain his release from the State prison at Jackson.

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.

Respondent was convicted in the circuit court for the county of Wayne of the crime of receiving stolen property exceeding in value $25 upon an information charging the crime to have been committed February 24, 1903. The statute (3 Comp. Laws, § 11556) prescribes that one convicted of this offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not more than five years or by fine not exceeding $500 and imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year. On March 12, 1904, respondent was sentenced to be confined " in the State prison at Jackson, Mich., at hard labor for the period of minimum five years maximum five years from and including this day.” Petitioner, who is before us on a writ of habeas corpus, insists that the sentence is entirely invalid; that it *220 was imposed under the provisions of Act No. 136, Pub. Acts 1903, which became operative September 16, 1903, and has no application; that, if held to be a sentence imposed under the governing law, its form deprives him of all rights under Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1895, and Act No. 118 of the Public Acts of 1893. The case is to be considered as though the indeterminate sentence law-had never been enacted. In re Lambrecht, 137 Mich. 450 . So considered, we are of opinion that this was a valid sentence, imposed under section 11556, 3 Comp. Laws, and does not deprive respondent of the benefits flowing from the statutes referred to.

It will be so certified to the warden of the State prison at Jackson.

How later courts describe this case

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

1906: 11911: 11913: 11915: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Forscutt133 N.W. 315 (Mich. 1911)
  2. People v. Fisher108 N.W. 280 (Mich. 1906)
  3. Stehr v. State142 N.W. 670 (Neb. 1913)
  4. Francis v. State4 Ohio App. 465 (1915)

Most recent

  1. Francis v. State4 Ohio App. 465 (1915)
  2. Stehr v. State142 N.W. 670 (Neb. 1913)
  3. In re Forscutt133 N.W. 315 (Mich. 1911)
  4. People v. Fisher108 N.W. 280 (Mich. 1906)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Lambrecht, 100 N.W. 606 (Mich. 1904) 36

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