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

The Court of Appeals has reiterated the Michigan Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in People v. McKinley, that a trial court may only award restitution to victims of the conduct giving rise to the criminal conviction.&nbsp; In <a href="http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&amp;enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTUxMDIxLjUwNDg2OTcxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE1MTAyMS41MDQ4Njk3MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3MjA4MDQxJmVtYWlsaWQ9bWxhbmVAd25qLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9bWxhbmVAd25qLmNvbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2YXJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&amp;&amp;&amp;102&amp;&amp;&amp;http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20151020_C321722_149_321722.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Raisbeck</a>, No. 321722, the trial court ordered the defendant, who was convicted of racketeering, to pay restitution for 31 victims, despite the fact that only 18 victims were listed in the criminal information. &nbsp;The defendant appealed the restitution order, arguing that the trial court could not include acts against individuals not listed in the information. &nbsp;The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the restitution order based on People v. McKinley.

contentpilot/introduction

The Michigan Supreme Court, in McKinley, held that a trial court may not “impose restitution based solely on uncharged conduct.”&nbsp; The Court held that the provisions criminalizing racketeering are based upon multiple individual incidents that create a pattern of racketeering activity.&nbsp; The statutes do not, however, expand the charge beyond the specific incidents that form its factual predicate.&nbsp; Because the prosecutor named 18 individuals in the amended information, the Court held that only the acts against these named individuals form the factual predicate for a single racketeering charge.&nbsp; Thus, restitution was available only for those named individuals.

core/paragraph

The Court also rejected defendant’s argument that the time that he spent in jail for a prior false pretenses conviction should be credited to the racketeering sentence, as the Michigan Supreme Court has made clear that a person is entitled to sentencing credit for time served in pretrial detention only when the defendant was incarcerated “for the offense of which he is convicted.” Finally, the Court quickly rejected the defendant’s argument that his conviction lacked sufficient evidence.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

COA: Restitution only available for victims named in the charged conduct

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: Restitution only available for victims named in the charged conduct

professionals