Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 762 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.13 (2026)

Assignment as youthful trainee; duties of court; fees; waiver of fee; "electronic monitoring device" defined.

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


762.13 Assignment as youthful trainee; duties of court; fees; waiver of fee; "electronic monitoring device" defined.

Sec. 13.

    (1) If an individual is assigned to the status of a youthful trainee and the underlying charge is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 1 year, the court shall do 1 of the following:

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (2), commit the individual to the department of corrections for custodial supervision and training for not more than 2 years. If the individual is less than 21 years of age, he or she must be committed to an institutional facility designated by the department for that purpose.

    (b) Place the individual on probation for not more than 3 years subject to probation conditions as provided in section 3 of chapter XI. The terms and conditions of probation may include participation in a drug treatment court under chapter 10A of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.1060 to 600.1088.

    (c) Commit the individual to the county jail for not more than 1 year.

    (d) Except as provided in subsection (2), commit the individual to the department of corrections under subdivision (a) or to the county jail under subdivision (c), and then place the individual on probation for not more than 1 year subject to probation conditions as provided in section 3 of chapter XI.

    (2) An individual assigned to the status of youthful trainee must not be committed to the department of corrections for custodial supervision and training under subsection (1)(a) or (d) if the underlying charge is for a violation of any of the following:

    (a) Article 7 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7101 to 333.7545.

    (b) Section 110, 110a(4), 157n to 157v, 157w(1)(c), 227, 356, 357, 413, 530, or 535(3) or (7) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.110, 750.110a, 750.157n to 750.157v, 750.157w, 750.227, 750.356, 750.357, 750.413, 750.530, and 750.535.

    (3) If an individual is assigned to the status of youthful trainee and the underlying charge is for an offense punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or less, the court shall place the individual on probation for not more than 2 years, subject to probation conditions as provided in section 3 of chapter XI.

    (4) An individual placed on probation under this section must be under the supervision of a probation officer. Upon commitment to and receipt by the department of corrections, a youthful trainee is subject to the direction of the department of corrections. If an individual is placed on probation following a commitment to the department of corrections under subsection (1)(d), a youthful trainee must be reassigned to the supervision of a probation officer.

    (5) If an individual is committed to the county jail under subsection (1)(c) or (d) or as a probation condition, the court may authorize work release or release for educational purposes.

    (6) Except as provided in subsection (7), the court shall include in each order of probation for an individual placed on probation under this section that the department of corrections collect a probation supervision fee of $30.00 multiplied by the number of months of probation ordered, but not more than 36 months, if the individual is placed on probation supervision without an electronic monitoring device. If the individual is placed on probation supervision under this subsection with an electronic monitoring device, the court shall include in its order of probation that the department of corrections collect a probation supervision fee of $60.00 multiplied by the number of months of probation ordered, but not more than 36 months. The fee is payable when the probation order is entered, but the fee may be paid in monthly installments if the court approves installment payments for that probationer. The fee must be collected as provided in section 25a of the corrections code of 1953, 1953 PA 232, MCL 791.225a. A person must not be subject to more than 1 supervision fee at the same time. If a supervision fee is ordered for a person for any month or months during which that person already is subject to a supervision fee, the court shall waive the fee having the shorter remaining duration.

    (7) The court may waive the fee required to be collected under this section if the court determines the supervised individual is indigent.

    (8) As used in this section, "electronic monitoring device" includes any electronic device or instrument that is used to track the location of an individual, enforce a curfew, or detect the presence of alcohol in an individual's body.

    

    

History: Add. 1966, Act 301, Eff. Jan. 1, 1967 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 185, Eff. Oct. 1, 1993 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 293, Eff. Jan. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 286, Eff. Oct. 1, 1995 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 483, Eff. Oct. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 226, Eff. Jan. 1, 2005 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 239, Eff. Oct. 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 33, Eff. Aug. 18, 2015 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 165, Eff. Mar. 19, 2020

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 2 of Act 33 of 2015 provides:

    "Enacting section 2. This amendatory act applies to cases in which an individual is assigned to youthful trainee status on or after the effective date of this amendatory act."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: John Doe, Xiv v. Michigan Dep't of State Police & Col. Tadarial Sturdivant, Dir., Michigan State Police, 490 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John Doe, Xiv v. Michigan Dep't of State Police & Col. Tadarial Sturdivant, Dir., Michigan State Police, 490 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2007). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.13 (6). As a result, the PSOR includes information about individuals who were assigned to youthful trainee status under the HYTA, satisfied their obligations, and thus were never convicted of their offense.”
People v. Rahilly, 635 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “MCL 762.13. Thus, the individual assigned to youthful trainee status is nonetheless punished for the crime committed.”
People v. Mahler, 402 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “That the act should be interpreted in such a manner is further buttressed by the language of its commitment section, MCL 762.13; MSA 28.853(13), which states: "If a youth is assigned to the status of youthful trainee and the underlying charge is an offense punishable by…”
People v. Crutchfield, 233 N.W.2d 507 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “MCLA 762.13; MSA 28.853(13). Defense counsel sought to impeach Clemmons’ credibility by revealing the Holmes Act proceedings.”
People v. Wilson, 296 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 13 of the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, MCL 762.13; MSA 28.853(13), provides: "If a youth is assigned to the status of a youthful trainee and the underlying charge is an offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for a term of more than 1 year, the court shall…”
People v. Khanani, 817 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “The prosecution notes that in People v Johnson, 488 Mich 860 ; 788 NW2d 10 (2010), the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for consideration as on leave to appeal granted “whether the sentencing guidelines apply to conditions imposed by a court under MCL…”
People v. Johnson, 788 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. 2010). “302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the sentencing guidelines apply to conditions imposed by a court under MCL 762.13 of the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act.”
20221215_C360559_32_360559.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” See MCL 762.13(1)(a) (providing that the court may 1 People v Robertson II, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 13, 2022 (Docket No.”
Zabavski 355967 v. Shaver (W.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 762.13 , 762.14. Notably, however, many CSC offenses are excluded from HYTA eligibility.”
Autrey v. United States (W.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 2× “Laws §§ 762.13 , 762.14. Defendant’s PSR indicates that on March 8, 2013, Defendant was sentenced pursuant to the HYTA statute to 3 months of probation for third-degree retail fraud.”
United States v. Milek Mims (6th Cir. 2023). “Mims counters that he could not have received a HYTA designation because HYTA requires individuals in the program to be placed on probation “for not more than 2 years,” MCL § 762.13(3), but there “was no room for a term of probation” in the roughly 40-day span between his…”
20240215_C366252_28_366252.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Defendant raises a potentially meritorious argument that the trial court was not authorized by the HYTA to impose probation with a greater term than three years, see MCL 762.13(1), and also that once defendant’s probationary period ended, the trial court did not have “the…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.13(1) — 1 case
20240215_C366252_28_366252.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Defendant raises a potentially meritorious argument that the trial court was not authorized by the HYTA to impose probation with a greater term than three years, see MCL 762.13(1), and also that once defendant’s probationary period ended, the trial court did not have “the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.13(1)(a) — 1 case
20221215_C360559_32_360559.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” See MCL 762.13(1)(a) (providing that the court may 1 People v Robertson II, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 13, 2022 (Docket No.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.13(1)(b) — 1 case
20221215_C360559_32_360559.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” See MCL 762.13(1)(a) (providing that the court may 1 People v Robertson II, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 13, 2022 (Docket No.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.13(3) — 1 case
United States v. Milek Mims (6th Cir. 2023). “Mims counters that he could not have received a HYTA designation because HYTA requires individuals in the program to be placed on probation “for not more than 2 years,” MCL § 762.13(3), but there “was no room for a term of probation” in the roughly 40-day span between his…”
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.