Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 752 / Act 53 of 1979
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797 (2026)

Penalties; prior convictions; presumption; reimbursement order; definition.

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

FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS


Act 53 of 1979


752.797 Penalties; prior convictions; presumption; reimbursement order; definition.

Sec. 7.

    (1) A person who violates section 4 is guilty of a crime as follows:

    (a) If the violation involves an aggregate amount of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

    (b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

    (i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.

    (ii) The person violates this act and has a prior conviction.

    (c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of 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 aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

    (i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.

    (ii) The person has 2 prior convictions.

    (d) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 3 times the aggregate amount, or both imprisonment and a fine:

    (i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $20,000.00 or more.

    (ii) The person has 3 or more prior convictions.

    (2) A person who violates section 5 is guilty of a crime as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

    (b) If the person has a prior conviction, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $50,000.00, or both.

    (3) A person who violates section 6 is guilty of a crime as follows:

    (a) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of 1 year or less, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (b) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year but less than 2 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (c) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years or more but less than 4 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (d) If the underlying crime is a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of 4 years or more but less than 10 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (e) If the underlying crime is a felony punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more but less than 20 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

    (f) If the underlying crime is a felony punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more or for life, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

    (4) The court may order that a term of imprisonment imposed under subsection (3) be served consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for conviction of the underlying offense.

    (5) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence under section 4 or section 5 based upon the defendant having a prior conviction, the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing that prior conviction. The existence of the defendant's prior conviction shall be determined by the court, without a jury, at 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.

    (6) It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access:

    (a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

    (b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain.

    (c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

    (7) The court may order a person convicted of violating this act to reimburse this state or a local unit of government of this state for expenses incurred in relation to the violation in the same manner that expenses may be ordered to be reimbursed under section 1f of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.1f.

    (8) As used in this section, "prior conviction" means a violation or attempted violation of section 145d of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.145d, or this act or a substantially similar law of the United States, another state, or a political subdivision of another state.

History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 326, Eff. Apr. 1, 1997 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 180, Eff. Sept. 18, 2000

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Susan Hernandez-Zitka, 922 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Susan Hernandez-Zitka, 922 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “The circuit court, however, entered orders granting defendants' motions to quash the amended information and dismissing all charges.”
People v. Harrison, 768 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “] MCL 752.797(3) provides the terms of imprisonment for a person guilty of violating MCL 752.”
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “520c, five counts of using a computer to produce child sexually abusive material, MCL 752.797(3), and one count of producing child sexually abusive material, MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. James Daniel Seadorf, 910 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “145c(2), and using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.797(3)(d). Defendant's convictions were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.”
People v. Agar, 887 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Defendant was sentenced to serve 18 months to 7 years for his convictions of distribution and use of a computer to commit a crime, 18 months to 4 years for each count of possession, and 1 to 2 years for resisting and obstructing a police officer, the sentences to be served…”
People v. Hill, 715 N.W.2d 301 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “796 and MCL 752.797(3)(f). Before addressing the arguments made by the prosecution and defendant relative to the preliminary examination, bindover, and the subsequent motion to quash, it is necessary to quote the language from the pertinent statutes in order to give context to…”
People v. Hill, 786 N.W.2d 601 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “796 and MCL 752.797(3)(f), and three counts of installing a device for observing, photographing, or eavesdropping in a private place, MCL 750.”
People v. Osantowski, 736 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “796 and MCL 752.797(3)(f); and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.”
People v. Zujko, 765 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “796; MCL 752.797(3)(d). Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of use of a computer to commit a crime in return for dismissal of the other charges.”
People of Michigan v. Jason Allen Tanis (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 19× “797(3), which in turn incorporates, MCL 752.796, as discussed.”
People v. Zujko, 765 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “796; MCL 752.797(3)(d). Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of use of a computer to commit a crime in return for dismissal of the other charges.”
People of Michigan v. Susan Hernandez-Zitka (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “218(1)(a), and three counts of using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.797(3)(e). After conducting a preliminary examination, the district court found that probable cause existed to bind over defendants to the circuit court.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(1)(a) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Lidia Elena Talaba (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Lidia Elena Talaba (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(2)(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Leon Jermane Walker (Mich. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(2)(b) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Leon Jermane Walker (Mich. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(3) — 5 cases
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “520c, five counts of using a computer to produce child sexually abusive material, MCL 752.797(3), and one count of producing child sexually abusive material, MCL 750.”
People v. Harrison, 768 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “] MCL 752.797(3) provides the terms of imprisonment for a person guilty of violating MCL 752.”
People of Michigan v. Miguel Garcia (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Benoni Jonathan Enciso (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Jason Allen Tanis (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “797(3), which in turn incorporates, MCL 752.796, as discussed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(3)(F) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Nicholas Hunter Mui (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(3)(c) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Teddy William Brown Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
20231214_C365926_56_365926.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. James Donald Holkeboer (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(3)(d) — 31 cases
People v. Agar, 887 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Defendant was sentenced to serve 18 months to 7 years for his convictions of distribution and use of a computer to commit a crime, 18 months to 4 years for each count of possession, and 1 to 2 years for resisting and obstructing a police officer, the sentences to be served…”
People of Michigan v. James Daniel Seadorf, 910 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “145c(2), and using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.797(3)(d). Defendant's convictions were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.”
People v. Harrison, 768 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “] MCL 752.797(3) provides the terms of imprisonment for a person guilty of violating MCL 752.”
People v. Zujko, 765 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “796; MCL 752.797(3)(d). Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of use of a computer to commit a crime in return for dismissal of the other charges.”
People v. Zujko, 765 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “796; MCL 752.797(3)(d). Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of use of a computer to commit a crime in return for dismissal of the other charges.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(3)(e) — 15 cases
People of Michigan v. Susan Hernandez-Zitka, 922 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “The circuit court, however, entered orders granting defendants' motions to quash the amended information and dismissing all charges.”
People v. Harrison, 768 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “] MCL 752.797(3) provides the terms of imprisonment for a person guilty of violating MCL 752.”
People of Michigan v. Jason Allen Tanis (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “797(3), which in turn incorporates, MCL 752.796, as discussed.”
People of Michigan v. Susan Hernandez-Zitka (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “218(1)(a), and three counts of using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.797(3)(e). After conducting a preliminary examination, the district court found that probable cause existed to bind over defendants to the circuit court.”
People of Michigan v. Susan K Hernandez-Zitka (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(3)(f) — 19 cases
People v. Hill, 715 N.W.2d 301 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “796 and MCL 752.797(3)(f). Before addressing the arguments made by the prosecution and defendant relative to the preliminary examination, bindover, and the subsequent motion to quash, it is necessary to quote the language from the pertinent statutes in order to give context to…”
People v. Hill, 786 N.W.2d 601 (Mich. 2010). “796 and MCL 752.797(3)(f), and three counts of installing a device for observing, photographing, or eavesdropping in a private place, MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. James Daniel Seadorf, 910 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “145c(2), and using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.797(3)(d). Defendant's convictions were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.”
People v. Osantowski, 736 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “796 and MCL 752.797(3)(f); and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. Edward James Charboneau (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(4) — 5 cases
People of Michigan v. Jason Allen Tanis (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “797(3), which in turn incorporates, MCL 752.796, as discussed.”
People of Michigan v. Benoni Jonathan Enciso (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Chad Michael Stiff (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Nicholas James Vontz (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
D People of Michigan v. Ryan William Cole (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(7) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Aftab Zaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
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.