THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.356c Retail fraud in first degree.
Sec. 356c.
(1) A person who does any of the following in a store or in its immediate vicinity is guilty of retail fraud in the first degree, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the value of the difference in price, property stolen, or money or property obtained or attempted to be obtained, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(a) While a store is open to the public, alters, transfers, removes and replaces, conceals, or otherwise misrepresents the price at which property is offered for sale, with the intent not to pay for the property or to pay less than the price at which the property is offered for sale, if the resulting difference in price is $1,000.00 or more.
(b) While a store is open to the public, steals property of the store that is offered for sale at a price of $1,000.00 or more.
(c) With intent to defraud, obtains or attempts to obtain money or property from the store as a refund or exchange for property that was not paid for and belongs to the store, if the amount of money or the value of the property obtained or attempted to be obtained is $1,000.00 or more.
(2) A person who violates section 356d(1) and who has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section or section 218, 356, 356d(1), or 360 is guilty of retail fraud in the first degree. For purposes of this subsection, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of section 218(2) or (3)(b) or section 356(4)(b) or (5).
(3) The values of the difference in price, property stolen, or money or property obtained or attempted to be obtained in separate incidents pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct within any 12-month period may be aggregated to determine the total value involved in the offense under this section.
(4) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions, the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction or convictions. The existence of the defendant's prior conviction or convictions shall be determined by the court, without a jury, at sentencing or at a separate hearing for that purpose before sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:
(a) A copy of the judgment of conviction.
(b) A transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing.
(c) Information contained in a presentence report.
(d) The defendant's statement.
(5) A person who commits retail fraud in the first degree shall not be prosecuted under section 218(5) or 356(2).
(6) If the sentence for a conviction under this section is enhanced by 1 or more prior convictions, those prior convictions shall not be used to further enhance the sentence for the conviction pursuant to section 10, 11, or 12 of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.10, 769.11, and 769.12.
History: Add. 1988, Act 20, Eff. June 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 311, Eff. Jan. 1, 1999
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
79
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case:
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016).
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 8× “31 For example, in 1998 PA 311 , the Legislature revised the first-degree retail fraud statute, MCL 750.356c, to state: If the sentence for a conviction under this section is enhanced by 1 or more prior convictions, those prior convictions shall not be used to further enhance…”
People v. Konopka (On Remand), 869 N.W.2d 651 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356c, and conspiracy to commit first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.”
People v. Smith-Anthony, 837 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. 2013).
· cites it 2× “41 See MCL 750.356c and MCL 750.356d. The majority concedes that Michigan is an “immediate presence” jurisdiction rather than one that requires the victim to have actual physical possession of the property taken.”
People v. Nyx, 734 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 2× “[28] MCL 750.356c; MCL 750.356d. [29] MCL 750.”
People v. Brown, 463 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “On October 19, 1989, defendant pled guilty in the Oakland Circuit Court of first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356c(2); MSA 28.588(3)(2), and of being a fourth-felony habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People v. Bewersdorf, 475 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. 1991).
· cites it 2× “In ruling that the habitual offender act is to be applied to a conviction for first-degree retail fraud even though the retail fraud statute, MCL 750.356c(2); MSA 28.588(3)(2), elevates retail fraud from second to first degree if defendant has a prior conviction for larceny, the…”
People v. Little, 456 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 750.356c(3), 750.356d(2); MSA 28.588(3)(3), 28.”
People v. Just., 550 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “We affirm. I Defendant shoplifted goods worth less than $100.”
People v. Eilola, 445 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “The provisions relating to first-degree retail fraud are codified in MCL 750.356c; MSA 28.588(3) and are as follows: (1) A person who does any of the following in a store or in its immediate vicinity is guilty of retail fraud in the first degree, a felony punishable by…”
Bright v. Ailshie, 641 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. 2002).
· cites it 2× “4 While the plain language of subsection (b) is dispositive, it is noteworthy that subsection (d) of MCL 764.”
People v. Fetterley, 583 N.W.2d 199 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“l In Eilola, supra, the defendant pleaded guilty of first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356c(2); MSA 28.588(3)(2), and of being a third-felony habitual offender.”
People v. Munn, 499 N.W.2d 459 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Defendant pleaded guilty of first- *727 degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356c; MSA 28.588(3), and of being an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356c(1) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356c(1)(b) — 5 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356c(2) — 20 cases
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016).
“31 For example, in 1998 PA 311 , the Legislature revised the first-degree retail fraud statute, MCL 750.356c, to state: If the sentence for a conviction under this section is enhanced by 1 or more prior convictions, those prior convictions shall not be used to further enhance…”
People v. Brown, 463 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“On October 19, 1989, defendant pled guilty in the Oakland Circuit Court of first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356c(2); MSA 28.588(3)(2), and of being a fourth-felony habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People v. Bewersdorf, 475 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. 1991).
“In ruling that the habitual offender act is to be applied to a conviction for first-degree retail fraud even though the retail fraud statute, MCL 750.356c(2); MSA 28.588(3)(2), elevates retail fraud from second to first degree if defendant has a prior conviction for larceny, the…”
People v. Fetterley, 583 N.W.2d 199 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“l In Eilola, supra, the defendant pleaded guilty of first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356c(2); MSA 28.588(3)(2), and of being a third-felony habitual offender.”
People v. Eilola, 445 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“The provisions relating to first-degree retail fraud are codified in MCL 750.356c; MSA 28.588(3) and are as follows: (1) A person who does any of the following in a store or in its immediate vicinity is guilty of retail fraud in the first degree, a felony punishable by…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356c(3) — 6 cases
People v. Little, 456 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 1990).
“See MCL 750.356c(3), 750.356d(2); MSA 28.588(3)(3), 28.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356c(4) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356c(6) — 1 case
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016).
“31 For example, in 1998 PA 311 , the Legislature revised the first-degree retail fraud statute, MCL 750.356c, to state: If the sentence for a conviction under this section is enhanced by 1 or more prior convictions, those prior convictions shall not be used to further enhance…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356c(l) — 2 cases
People v. Konopka (On Remand), 869 N.W.2d 651 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356c, and conspiracy to commit first-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.”
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.