Skip to Main Content
Blogs
Blogs | April 22, 2015
2 minute read

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

In People v. Juntikka, 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.”

Although the Court of Appeals initially denied leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of People v. Cunningham, 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.

Judge O’Connell filed a dissenting opinion, 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.