Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1095 (2026)

Admission to mental health court; requirements; jurisdiction; fee.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.1095 Admission to mental health court; requirements; jurisdiction; fee.

Sec. 1095.

    (1) Upon admitting an individual into a mental health court, all of the following apply:

    (a) For an individual who is admitted to a mental health court based upon having criminal charges currently filed against him or her and who has not already pled guilty or no contest the court shall accept the plea of guilty or no contest.

    (b) For an individual who pled guilty or no contest to criminal charges for which he or she was admitted into the mental health court, the court shall do either of the following:

    (i) In the case of an individual who pled guilty or no contest to criminal offenses that are not traffic offenses and who may be eligible for discharge and dismissal under the agreement for which he or she was admitted into mental health court upon successful completion of the mental health court program, the court shall not enter a judgment of guilt.

    (ii) In the case of an individual who pled guilty to a traffic offense or who pled guilty to an offense but may not be eligible for discharge and dismissal pursuant to the agreement with the court and prosecutor upon successful completion of the mental health court program, the court shall enter a judgment of guilt.

    (iii) Pursuant to the agreement with the individual and the prosecutor, the court may either delay further proceedings as provided in section 1 of chapter XI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.1, or proceed to sentencing, as applicable, and place the individual on probation or other court supervision in the mental health court program with terms and conditions according to the agreement and as considered necessary by the court.

    (2) Unless a memorandum of understanding made pursuant to section 1088 between a receiving mental health court and the court of original jurisdiction provides otherwise, the original court of jurisdiction maintains jurisdiction over the mental health court participant as provided in this chapter until final disposition of the case, but not longer than the probation period fixed under section 2 of chapter XI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.2.

    (3) The mental health court may require an individual admitted into the court to pay a reasonable mental health court fee that is reasonably related to the cost to the court for administering the mental health court program as provided in the memorandum of understanding. The clerk of the mental health court shall transmit the fees collected to the treasurer of the local funding unit at the end of each month.

History: Add. 2013, Act 276, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 2013 ;-- Am. 2017, Act 161, Eff. Feb. 11, 2018 ;-- Am. 2017, Act 161, Eff. Feb. 11, 2018 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 591, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Lavelle Wesley Searcy (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Lavelle Wesley Searcy (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “” MCL 600.1095(1). 2 Under the MOU, the prosecuting attorney’s office agreed to “[a]ssist in the development of legal and clinical eligibility criteria,” and “[s]creen all potential participants based upon established eligibility criteria.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1095(1) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Lavelle Wesley Searcy (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “” MCL 600.1095(1). 2 Under the MOU, the prosecuting attorney’s office agreed to “[a]ssist in the development of legal and clinical eligibility criteria,” and “[s]creen all potential participants based upon established eligibility criteria.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1095(1)(b)(iii) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Lavelle Wesley Searcy (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “” MCL 600.1095(1). 2 Under the MOU, the prosecuting attorney’s office agreed to “[a]ssist in the development of legal and clinical eligibility criteria,” and “[s]creen all potential participants based upon established eligibility criteria.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.