Case Name: PEOPLE v. HALL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-12-09
Citations: 28 Mich. App. 662
Docket Number: Docket No. 9768
Parties: PEOPLE v. HALL
Judges: Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 28
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. HALL
Criminal Law — Sentence—Safe Breaking — Attempt.
Sentence of 8 to 25 years upon a conviction of attempt to injure a safe is proper, because the statute under which the defendant was convicted expressly provides for the punishment of the offense and the general attempt statute does not apply because the latter statute applies only when no express provision is made by law for the punishment of an attempt (MCLA §§ 750.92, 750.531).
Reference for Points in Headnote
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 587.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, J oseph Giovan, J. Submitted Division 1 November 17,1970, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 9768.)
Decided December 9, 1970.
Leave to appeal denied March 15, 1971.
384 Mich 816.
Reginald Hall was convicted of attempt to injure a safe. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Robert A. Reuther, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Charles T. Rurke, for defendant on appeal.
Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The people move to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5 [3]) defendant's conviction of violating MCLA § 750.531 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.799) and the 8- to 25-year prison sentence imposed thereon.
In stating his findings, the trial court stated that defendant did in fact injure a safe. However, in stating the verdict, the court said that defendant did attempt to injure a safe. On appeal, defendant contends that he should have been sentenced to no more than five years in prison under the general attempt statute, MCLA § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287).
The general attempt statute is not applicable in this case because it applies only "when no express provision is made by law for the punishment of such attempt". MCLA § 750.531 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.799), the statute under which defendant was convicted, expressly provides for the punishment of the offense of attempting to break, burn, blow-up or otherwise injure or destroy any safe.
Motion to affirm, granted.