Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <em><a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20150421_C318300_44_318300.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Juntikka</a></em>, No. 318300, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that MCL 771.3(2)(d) does not authorize trial courts to impose a probation enhancement fee. The defendant was sentenced to five years of probation for failing to register as a sex offender under MCL 28.729, and the trial court imposed a $100 probation enhancement fee. On defendant’s objection, the trial court noted that the fee went to pay for equipment for probation agents such as gloves and cell phones. MCL 771.3 provides that the court may impose costs as a condition of probation, but those costs “must be limited to expenses specifically incurred in prosecuting the defendant or providing legal assistance to the defendant and supervision of the probationer.”

contentpilot/introduction

Although the Court of Appeals initially denied leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of <em>People v. Cunningham</em>, 496 Mich. 145 (2014), in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that courts may only impose costs in a criminal case where those costs are imposed by a statute. The Court of Appeals held that, under MCL 771.3, costs specifically incurred because of the defendant do not include costs that would be incurred whether or not the defendant engaged in criminal activity.

core/paragraph

Judge O’Connell filed a <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20150421_C318300_45_318300D.OPN.PDF">dissenting opinion</a>, reasoning that MCL 771.3’s provision for the imposition of costs specifically incurred by the defendant encompassed the probation enhancement fee. Further, the dissenting judge notes that the probationer was subject to additional monitoring under the Sex Offender Registration Act, so the imposition of additional costs was justified.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

COA holds that trial court erred by charging defendant probation enhancement fee

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

COA holds that trial court erred by charging defendant probation enhancement fee

professionals