PRISON CODE
Act 118 of 1893
800.61 Escaped convicts; measures for apprehension; reward; sentence.
Sec. 61.
Whenever any convict shall escape from a prison, the warden shall take all proper measures for the apprehension of the convict, and for that purpose he or she may offer a reward not exceeding $50.00 for the apprehension and delivery of that convict; but with the consent of his or her board the reward may be increased to a sum not exceeding $500.00. All suitable rewards and other sums of money, necessarily paid for advertising and apprehending any convict who may escape from prison, shall be audited by the state treasurer, and paid out of the state treasury. If any prisoner shall be retaken, the time between the escape and his or her recommittal shall not be computed as part of the term of imprisonment, but he or she shall remain in the prison a sufficient length of time after the term of his or her sentence would have expired, if he or she had not escaped, to equal the period of time he or she may have been absent by reason of the escape.
History: 1893, Act 118, Imd. Eff. May 26, 1893 ;-- CL 1897, 2140 ;-- CL 1915, 1759 ;-- CL 1929, 17603 ;-- CL 1948, 800.61 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 89, Imd. Eff. Mar. 26, 2002
PopularName Notes:
Prison Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1987–2009 · leading case:
People v. Idziak, 773 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. 2009).
People v. Idziak, 773 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The only time the service of a sentence is suspended or stopped is if the prisoner escapes from prison [see MCL 800.61] or if as a parolee the prisoner absconds from parole supervision [see MCL 791.”
Sobiecki v. Dep't of Corr., 721 N.W.2d 229 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Therefore, although defendants were not required to terminate plaintiffs uttering and publishing sentence, they had the discretion to do so. Plaintiff argues that the only way he could have been paroled is if the Parole Board had terminated his uttering and publishing sentence,…”
People v. Roscoe, 413 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“MCL 800.61; MSA 28.1430. Thus, the term "administrative warrant” appears to be nomenclature adopted by the Department of Corrections for use with its forms and procedures rather than a term created by the Legislature.”
Sobiecki v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 721 N.W.2d 229 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Therefore, although defendants were not required to terminate plaintiff's uttering and publishing sentence, they had the discretion to do so. Plaintiff argues that the only way he could have been paroled is if the Parole Board had terminated his uttering and publishing sentence,…”
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.