determines after hearing in Michigan

2008Defendant committed the offenses before MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) went into effect. [4] See Carter, supra at 1068-1070 , 743 N.W.2d 918 , for a summary of the holdings in James, Fuller, and Bearden . [5] "Costs" are defined, in part, as "the cost of providing court-ordered legal assistance to the defendant." MCL 600.4801(a).

2008Defendant committed the offenses before MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) went into effect. [4] See Carter, supra at 1068-1070 , 743 N.W.2d 918 , for a summary of the holdings in James, Fuller, and Bearden . [5] "Costs" are defined, in part, as "the cost of providing court-ordered legal assistance to the defendant." MCL 600.4801(a).

2025“Courts may only impose costs in a criminal case when such costs are authorized by statute.” People v Juntikka, 310 Mich App 306, 310 ; 871 NW2d 555 (2015).

2025“Courts may only impose costs in a criminal case when such costs are authorized by statute.” People v Juntikka, 310 Mich App 306, 310 ; 871 NW2d 555 (2015).

2024(B) Goods and services necessary for the operation of the court. -2- (C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.[2] [MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) (footnote added).] “A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving the law’s invalidity.” In re Forfeiture of 2000 GMC Denali & Contents, 316 Mich App 562, 569 ; 892 NW2d 388 (2016).

2024(B) Goods and services necessary for the operation of the court. -2- (C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.[2] [MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) (footnote added).] “A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving the law’s invalidity.” In re Forfeiture of 2000 GMC Denali & Contents, 316 Mich App 562, 569 ; 892 NW2d 388 (2016).

2021Among other things, [t]his requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings . . . preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, “generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done,” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 US 123, 172 ; 71 S Ct 624, 649 ; 95 L Ed 817 (1951) (FRANKFURTER, J., concurring), by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him. [Id.] At the time defendant was sentenced

2021Among other things, [t]his requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings . . . preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, “generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done,” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 US 123, 172 ; 71 S Ct 624, 649 ; 95 L Ed 817 (1951) (FRANKFURTER, J., concurring), by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him. [Id.] At the time defendant was sentenced

2018(C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.3 MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) gives trial courts the statutory authority to assess court costs, so long as such costs are “reasonably related to the actual costs incurred.” See also People v Konopka, 309 Mich App 345, 357 ; 869 NW2d 651 (2015).

2018(C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.3 MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) gives trial courts the statutory authority to assess court costs, so long as such costs are “reasonably related to the actual costs incurred.” See also People v Konopka, 309 Mich App 345, 357 ; 869 NW2d 651 (2015).

2016For the same reasons, we reject the prosecution’s reliance on MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) in its brief on appeal. -5- The Michigan Supreme Court summarized the rules of statutory construction in People v Phillips, 469 Mich 390, 395 ; 666 NW2d 657 (2003): When construing a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.

2016For the same reasons, we reject the prosecution’s reliance on MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) in its brief on appeal. -5- The Michigan Supreme Court summarized the rules of statutory construction in People v Phillips, 469 Mich 390, 395 ; 666 NW2d 657 (2003): When construing a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.

2015In People v Sanders (After Remand), 298 Mich App 105, 108 ; 825 NW2d 376 (2012) (Sanders IT), this Court expressed satisfaction “that the trial court complied with our directives on remand and did establish a sufficient factual basis to conclude that $1,000 in court costs under MCL 769.1k(l)(b)(ii) is a reasonable amount in a felony case conducted in the Berrien Circuit Court.” *353 In Cunningham, 496 Mich at 147 , our Supreme Court held that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) did not provide courts with the “independent authority to impose costs upon criminal defendants.” Rather, “MCL 769.1k(l)(b)(ii) prov

2015In People v Sanders (After Remand), 298 Mich App 105, 108 ; 825 NW2d 376 (2012) (Sanders IT), this Court expressed satisfaction “that the trial court complied with our directives on remand and did establish a sufficient factual basis to conclude that $1,000 in court costs under MCL 769.1k(l)(b)(ii) is a reasonable amount in a felony case conducted in the Berrien Circuit Court.” *353 In Cunningham, 496 Mich at 147 , our Supreme Court held that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) did not provide courts with the “independent authority to impose costs upon criminal defendants.” Rather, “MCL 769.1k(l)(b)(ii) prov

2015It is also true — and we specifically hold — that the subject matter of the legislative amendment is so inextricably tied to the subject matter of the decision in Cunningham that it is appropriate for us to consider them in conjunction with each other, and in fact, it would be inappropriate for us to do otherwise. 4 At the time of sentencing, and at the time of defendant’s commission of the offenses giving rise to sentencing, MCL 769.1k provided, in relevant part: (1) If a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or if the court determines after a hearing or *352 trial that the def

2015It is also true — and we specifically hold — that the subject matter of the legislative amendment is so inextricably tied to the subject matter of the decision in Cunningham that it is appropriate for us to consider them in conjunction with each other, and in fact, it would be inappropriate for us to do otherwise. 4 At the time of sentencing, and at the time of defendant’s commission of the offenses giving rise to sentencing, MCL 769.1k provided, in relevant part: (1) If a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or if the court determines after a hearing or *352 trial that the def

2009(Hi) The expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant. (iv) Any assessment authorized by law. (v) Reimbursement under [MCL 769.1f]. *469 Defendant argues that the instant situation parallels that of People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App 240 ; 690 NW2d 476 (2004), which requires consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay before the imposition of attorney fees. 2 We disagree. 3 In Dunbar , this Court determined the imposition of attorney fees improper because “the record [was] devoid of any indication that the [trial] court recognized that defendant’s ability to pay needed to be considered

2009(Hi) The expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant. (iv) Any assessment authorized by law. (v) Reimbursement under [MCL 769.1f]. *469 Defendant argues that the instant situation parallels that of People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App 240 ; 690 NW2d 476 (2004), which requires consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay before the imposition of attorney fees. 2 We disagree. 3 In Dunbar , this Court determined the imposition of attorney fees improper because “the record [was] devoid of any indication that the [trial] court recognized that defendant’s ability to pay needed to be considered