Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.24
Excessive sentence; validity.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
769.24 Excessive sentence; validity.
Sec. 24.
Whenever, in any criminal case, the defendant shall be adjudged guilty and a punishment by fine or imprisonment shall be imposed in excess of that allowed by law, the judgment shall not for that reason alone be judged altogether void, nor be wholly reversed and annulled by any court of review, but the same shall be valid and effectual to the extent of the lawful penalty, and shall only be reversed or annulled on writ of error or otherwise, in respect to the unlawful excess.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17352 ;-- CL 1948, 769.24
FormerLaw Notes:
See Act 170 of 1867, being CL 1871, § 7998; How., § 9614; CL 1897, § 11984; and CL 1915, § 15857.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: People v. Miles
People v. Miles (1997)
“Although there was no "unlawful excess" at issue in this case, the principle of Thomas , that even the maximum and minimum terms of a sentence may be adjusted independently, is even more logical when applied to adjustments of sentences for separate convictions.”
People v. Malkowski (1971)
“(MCLA § 769.24 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1094].”
People v. Hooper (1973)
“(MCLA § 769.24 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1094]).”
People v. Williams (1994)
“In support, he cites MCL 769.24; MSA 28.1094, which provides: Whenever, in any criminal case, the defendant shall be adjudged guilty and a punishment by fine or imprisonment shall be imposed in excess of that allowed by law, the judgment shall not for that reason alone be judged…”
Bowen v. Recorder's Court Judge (1970)
“*62 I would remand to the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit with instructions, in accordance with the excessive sentence statute (MCLA § 769.24 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1094]), to that court to credit defendant's sentence to the extent of 11 months and 13 days served by…”
People v. Thomas (1994)
“” MCL 769.24; MSA 28.1094. The rule that a sentencing court may not later modify á valid sentence has been restated by this Court in MCR 6.”
Cross Co. v. UAW Local No. 155 (1966)
“This procedure is in conformity with Michigan criminal practice provided in CL 1948, § 769.24 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1094): “Whenever, in any criminal case, the defendant shall be adjudged guilty and a punishment by fine or imprisonment shall be imposed in excess of that…”
Moore v. Parole Board (1967)
“11a, as amended by PA 1965, No 67 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 28.1083 [1]).”
People v. Mapp (1997)
“” MCL 769.24; MSA *434 28.1094. The rule that a sentencing court may not later modify a valid sentence has been restated by this Court in MCR 6.”
People v. Michael Jones (1989)
“] Thus, any imposition of costs as part a criminal sentence pursuant to any court rule promulgated by the Supreme Court in accordance with the rja would run afoul of MCL 769.24; MSA 28.1094, which provides: Whenever, in any criminal case, the defendant shall be adjudged guilty…”
In Re Pardee (1950)
“It was not error to correct that which should have been done, even though petitioner was absent at the time of correction.”
In Re Wall (1951)
“It is suggested in the brief of the attorney general and the solicitor general that under the circum *435 stances CL 1948, § 769.24 (Stat Ann § 28.1094), may properly be applied.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.24(10) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.