Opinion ID: 1230721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: embezzlement

Text: And said respondent ARTHUR J. WEIR, being on motion of the prosecuting attorney of the county, arraigned at the bar in open court for sentence, and having there been asked by the court whether he had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced against him, and answering briefly; THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the court now here that said ARTHUR J. WEIR pay damages of $11,000 and costs of $1,000 and in default of same to be confined at hard labor in the State Prison of Southern Michigan in this State, until the same is paid for the period of not to exceed 10 years, from and including this day. THADDEUS B. TAYLOR, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GRAND RAPIDS The assistant attorney general concedes that the sentence imposed is erroneous, and quotes in part from the statute as follows: The court imposing sentence shall not fix a definite term of imprisonment, but shall fix a minimum term except as hereinafter provided. The maximum penalty provided by law shall be the maximum sentence in all cases except as herein provided and shall be stated by the judge in passing sentence. CL 1948, § 769.8 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1080). We determine that the sentence imposed was not proper under the statute and did not fix a minimum term. We further determine that plaintiff Arthur Weir should be discharged from custody under the sentence imposed. He is subject, however, to requirement by the superior court of Grand Rapids to serve such sentence as said superior court of the city of Grand Rapids shall hereafter impose nunc pro tunc. The sentence imposed was within the authority of the court but was defective. The defect can be corrected by the court nunc pro tunc. See In re Allison, 322 Mich 491 (syllabus 3). As to the former jeopardy, the result of the former trial must, under the Michigan Constitution, 1908 (art 2, § 14), be on the merits; under the statute (CL 1948, § 763.5 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.858]), on the facts and merits. The dismissal of the former prosecution on the charge of larceny by conversion following disagreement of the jury is not to be considered as an acquittal either on the facts or on the merits. Plaintiff's claim of former jeopardy is overruled. See People v. Harding, 53 Mich 481; People v. Pline, 61 Mich 247; People v. Sharp, 163 Mich 79. Plaintiff is discharged from custody of the State prison but remanded to the custody of the sheriff to await resentence.