Court Opinion

ID: 9722791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:50:26.698539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:40.016755
License: Public Domain

Quinn, P. J.
{concurring). October 28, 1963, defendant was placed on 2 years’ probation, the conditions of which included payment of a $100 fine at the rate of $10 per month. On the same date, defendant consented to the terms of the probation order by affixing his signature thereto. November 14, 1963, defendant filed motion for new trial with no date noticed for hearing the same. November 15, 1963, the people filed answer to this motion. By praecipe dated November 25, 1964, the prosecuting attorney noticed the motion for hearing December 7, 1964. By similar action under date of December '3, 1964, the prosecuting attorney noticed the motion for hearing January 11, 1965. Defendant, by prae-cipe dated January 4, 1965, noticed the motion for *218hearing February 25, 1965 and under date of December 21, 1965, defendant again noticed the motion fox-hearing February 28, ’65 (apparexxtly ’66 intended). By stipulation, the hearing oxx the motioxx was adjourned from March 5, 1365 to Apx-il 7, 1965. October 28, 1965, on petitioxx of the probation officer, which indicated all conditioxxs of probation had been completed, defexxdant was discharged from probation.
■ The much-adjourned motioxx for new trial was finally heard June 21, 1966 and dexxied the same day. August 15,1966, defexxdaxxt filed a claim of appeal from an order entered May 20, 1963 denying his motion to quash, from a similar order entered September 17, 1963 on a similar motion, from axx order entered October 1, 1963 denying defexxdant’s motion to strike testimoxxy, from judgment and sentence of October 28, 1963 and from the order of June 21, 1966 denying motion fox- xxew trial.
Recitation of the foregoixxg facts obviates eommeixt'by this Court on the shoddy practice here represented. How the case reached the stage of oral argument before this Court at its December 1967 term is beyoxxd my comprehexxsion, but it did. Now, after reading the briefs and hearing oral argument, I find the case has beexx xnoot since October 28, 1965, the judgmexxt oxi convictioxx h.aving been discharged by defexxdaxxt’s owxx acts. (People v. Leavitt [1879], 41 Mich 470; Powell v. People [1881], 47 Mich 108; City of Ishpeming v. Mary Maroney [1882], 49 Mich 226; Ideal Furnace Company v. International Holders’ Union of North America [1918], 204 Mich 311; People v. Ortwshi [1922], 220 Mich 462; People v. Melovics [1923], 221 Mich 620; Thomas v. Montcalm Circuit Judge [1924], 228 Mich 44; People v. Pyrros [1948], 323 Mich 329.) Here there is no *219showing of collateral legal disability arising from the conviction as in People v. Mallory (1967), 378 Mich 538, and the authorities cited above control.
Affirmed.