Opinion
Docket No. 2,560.
Decided November 24, 1967.
Appeal from Kent; Searl (Fred N.), J. Submitted Division 3 June 9, 1967, at Lansing. (Docket No. 2,560.) Decided November 24, 1967.
Claim and delivery by George Nawrocki against the Superior Court of Grand Rapids and Jack Bronkema, Kent County Clerk, to recover that portion of restitution paid by him, under the provisions of a probation order, which exceeded the amount of a forged check which he was found guilty of having uttered and published. Summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
George Nawrocki, in propria persona. Vander Veen, Freihofer Cook, for defendants.
Following his conviction for uttering and publishing a forged $30 check, plaintiff was placed on probation July 2, 1956. One term of the probation order required plaintiff forthwith to make restitution of $737.80 and pay costs of $100 and he complied therewith. The amount of restitution was the total of other forged checks uttered and published and the $30 check involved in the conviction. Thereafter, plaintiff's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison.
CL 1948, § 750.249 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446).
June 20, 1966, plaintiff filed complaint for claim and delivery in Kent county circuit court against the superior court of Grand Rapids and Jack Bronkema, county clerk, to recover the restitution that exceeded the $30 check on which he was convicted on the theory that restitution for any sum beyond the amount involved in the offense for which he was convicted was illegal. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis the complaint failed to state a cause of action (GCR 1963, 117.2), and other grounds unnecessary to consider in this decision. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appeals.
PA 1961, No 236, § 2920, CLS 1961, § 600.2920 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2920).
The order of probation was a judgment of a court having jurisdiction of plaintiff and the crime with which he was charged. That judgment was not appealed from when plaintiff filed the present complaint. The judgment may not be attacked collaterally, as plaintiff seeks to do. Turbessi v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. (1930), 250 Mich. 110; Kougoulas v. Sorlas (1930), 252 Mich. 557.
Affirmed.
J.H. GILLIS and McGREGOR, JJ., concurred.