Case Name: PEOPLE v. GUNNER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-05-30
Citations: 61 Mich. App. 569
Docket Number: Docket No. 21411
Parties: PEOPLE v GUNNER
Judges: Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and Quinn and R. M. Maher, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 61
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v GUNNER
Criminal Law — Probation Violation — Arrest Warrant — Due Diligence.
Probation authorities must exercise due diligence in executing a warrant for a probation violation; therefore, a probation violation conviction will be reversed where the defendant was not arrested until almost a year after the warrant for probation violation had issued, the probation department had defendant’s address, and there was no showing that the failure to execute the warrant sooner was attributable to defendant.
Reference for Points in Headnote
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 567, 568.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Robert J. Colombo, J. Submitted Division 1 April 18, 1975, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 21411.)
Decided May 30, 1975.
Mack A. Gunner was convicted of a probation violation. Defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Patricia J. Boyle, Principal Attorney, Research, Training and Appeals, and Luvenia D. Dockett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Charles Burke, for defendant.
Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and Quinn and R. M. Maher, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On April 23, 1974, defendant was found guilty of violating probation. A warrant for probation violation was issued on May 7, 1973, 5 days prior to defendant's release from the Detroit House of Correction. Upon his release from the house of correction, defendant returned to his home in Detroit, where he stayed until his arrest on April 22, 1974.
In People v Diamond, 59 Mich App 581; 229 NW2d 857 (1975), this Court held that "once a warrant for probation violation has been issued, the probation authorities must exercise due diligence in executing it". It appears that the probation department had defendant's address but made no attempt to have him arrested for almost a full year. There being no showing that the failure to serve the notice of violation of probation on defendant sooner was attributable to defendant, his conviction of probation violation is reversed.