From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Robey

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jan 9, 1975
57 Mich. App. 630 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

Docket No. 19877.

Decided January 9, 1975.

Original action in the Court of Appeals and appeal from Washtenaw, Ross W. Campbell, J. Submitted Division 2 October 8, 1974, at Lansing. (Docket No. 19877.) Decided January 9, 1975.

Complaint by Oliver Smith against Ames Robey, Director of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, for mandamus ordering the defendant to release all similarly confined persons who have not been adjudged mentally ill and for habeas corpus. Defendant's release had been denied by the Circuit Court in a previous habeas corpus action. Relief conditionally granted, the order of the Circuit Court reversed, and remanded for further proceedings.

Hays Goldstein, P.C., for plaintiff.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Milton I. Firestone and Thomas R. Wheeker, Assistants Attorney General, for defendant.

Before: QUINN, P.J., and BASHARA and VAN VALKENBURG, JJ.

Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.


The plaintiff was found not guilty of armed robbery by reason of insanity and committed to the Department of Mental Health pursuant to MCLA 767.27b; MSA 28.966(12). Subsequently, the plaintiff brought this action seeking to maintain a class action for a writ of mandamus ordering the defendant to release all confined persons who have not been adjudged mentally ill. The plaintiff also sought habeas corpus for his own release. The circuit court denied relief.

The Supreme Court's decision in People v McQuillan, 392 Mich. 511; 221 N.W.2d 569 (1974), controls this case. In that case it was held that a person committed under the automatic commitment statute could be held for 60 days for examination and observation and that after this period a hearing must follow forthwith. It would appear that the plaintiff is one of those covered by the statement of the Court at page 547 where it was said:

"The ruling as to such automatic commitment procedures is to have prospective effect only. Except that any already similarly detained for more than 60 days without examination and observation shall be given examination and observation within the 60 days from the date of this opinion and thereupon noticed for hearing within the next 10 days or discharged. The ruling as to release procedures applies immediately to all those automatically committed under MCLA 767.27b."

The order of the circuit court must be reversed. However, because the proper disposition of this case may have been delayed by the pendency of this action we deem it appropriate to duplicate the action of the Supreme Court in McQuillan. The prosecutor, or other proper party, may have 20 days from the date of this decision to take commitment action in the probate court. If this is not done, or if the prosecutor indicates that he will not take such action, the defendant shall be discharged.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Smith v. Robey

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jan 9, 1975
57 Mich. App. 630 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

Smith v. Robey

Case Details

Full title:SMITH v ROBEY

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 9, 1975

Citations

57 Mich. App. 630 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
226 N.W.2d 593

Citing Cases

Phoenix Trust Co. v. Holt

If the amount of the bid was less than the actual value of the lands, such bid must have been so low as to…

Tait v. Anderson Banking Co.

This statute, although later declared unconstitutional as respects nonresident trustees, specifically…