Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 769 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13 (2026)

Notice of intent to seek enhanced sentence; filing by prosecuting attorney; challenge to accuracy or constitutional validity; evidence of existence of prior conviction; determination by court; burden of proof.

✓ 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


769.13 Notice of intent to seek enhanced sentence; filing by prosecuting attorney; challenge to accuracy or constitutional validity; evidence of existence of prior conviction; determination by court; burden of proof.

Sec. 13.

    (1) In a criminal action, the prosecuting attorney may seek to enhance the sentence of the defendant as provided under section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter, by filing a written notice of his or her intent to do so within 21 days after the defendant's arraignment on the information charging the underlying offense or, if arraignment is waived, within 21 days after the filing of the information charging the underlying offense.

    (2) A notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence filed under subsection (1) shall list the prior conviction or convictions that will or may be relied upon for purposes of sentence enhancement. The notice shall be filed with the court and served upon the defendant or his or her attorney within the time provided in subsection (1). The notice may be personally served upon the defendant or his or her attorney at the arraignment on the information charging the underlying offense, or may be served in the manner provided by law or court rule for service of written pleadings. The prosecuting attorney shall file a written proof of service with the clerk of the court.

    (3) The prosecuting attorney may file notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence after the defendant has been convicted of the underlying offense or a lesser offense, upon his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere if the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere at the arraignment on the information charging the underlying offense, or within the time allowed for filing of the notice under subsection (1).

    (4) A defendant who has been given notice that the prosecuting attorney will seek to enhance his or her sentence as provided under section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter, may challenge the accuracy or constitutional validity of 1 or more of the prior convictions listed in the notice by filing a written motion with the court and by serving a copy of the motion upon the prosecuting attorney in accordance with rules of the supreme court.

    (5) 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 scheduled for that purpose before sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence that is relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:

    (a) A copy of a judgment of conviction.

    (b) A transcript of a prior trial or a plea-taking or sentencing proceeding.

    (c) A copy of a court register of actions.

    (d) Information contained in a presentence report.

    (e) A statement of the defendant.

    (6) The court shall resolve any challenges to the accuracy or constitutional validity of a prior conviction or convictions that have been raised in a motion filed under subsection (4) at sentencing or at a separate hearing scheduled for that purpose before sentencing. The defendant, or his or her attorney, shall be given an opportunity to deny, explain, or refute any evidence or information pertaining to the defendant's prior conviction or convictions before sentence is imposed, and shall be permitted to present relevant evidence for that purpose. The defendant shall bear the burden of establishing a prima facie showing that an alleged prior conviction is inaccurate or constitutionally invalid. If the defendant establishes a prima facie showing that information or evidence concerning an alleged prior conviction is inaccurate, the prosecuting attorney shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the information or evidence is accurate. If the defendant establishes a prima facie showing that an alleged prior conviction is constitutionally invalid, the prosecuting attorney shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the prior conviction is constitutionally valid.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17341 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 310, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 769.13 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 56, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 77, Eff. Sept. 1, 1978 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 110, Eff. May 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 655, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2007

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 314 cases (56 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: People v. Brown, 822 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Brown, 822 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 9× “MCL 769.13(1) contains additional time restrictions for seeking a sentence enhancement under the habitual-offender statutes and requires the prosecuting attorney to file “a written notice of his or her intent to do so within 21 days after the defendant's arraignment on the…”
People v. Stevens, 276 N.W.2d 910 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 24× “[3] Defendants in both instances have the right to a trial by jury, MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085, and the prosecution must prove the charges by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Eason, 458 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 12× “15(7413)(2), "[a]n individual convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this article may be imprisoned for not more than twice the term otherwise authorized or fined an amount not more than twice that otherwise authorized, or both," is compared with the language of MCL…”
People v. Hornsby, 650 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Defendant reasons that although the prosecutor timely filed a notice to seek sentence enhancement in accordance with MCL 769.13, a later, untimely amendment of the notice to correct the prior felonies enumerated therein should have foreclosed sentence enhancement under the…”
People v. Hendrick, 247 N.W.2d 840 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 10× “12 provides that the person "need not have been indicted and convicted as a previous offender in order to receive the increased punishment * * * but may be proceeded against as provided [in MCLA 769.13]". MCLA 769.13; MSA 28.1085 reads in part: "If at any time after conviction…”
People of Michigan v. Christopher Duran Head, 917 N.W.2d 752 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “12 ], by filing a written notice of his or her intent to do so within 21 days after the defendant's arraignment on the information charging the underlying *763 offense or, if arraignment is waived, within 21 days after the filing of the information charging the underlying…”
People v. Green, 580 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “Under a former version of MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085, 2 a trial court was required to vacate a defendant’s underlying sentence before sentencing him as an habitual offender if the defendant’s habitual offender status was determined after the imposition of his sentence for the…”
People v. Young, 301 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 8× “MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085. The only recognized exception to this rule is when the delay is due to the need to verify out-of-state felony convictions based on the `rap sheet'.”
People v. Marshall, 830 N.W.2d 414 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “The procedure for seeking sentence enhancement is prescribed in MCL 769.13, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) In a criminal action, the prosecuting attorney may seek to enhance the sentence of the defendant as provided under [MCL 769.”
People v. Fountain, 282 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 4× “MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085. *99 The only recognized exception to this rule is when the delay is due to the need to verify out-of-state felony convictions based on the "rap sheet".”
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 4× “12, and MCL 769.13. Specifically, defendant was charged under the second-offense habitual-offender statute, MCL 769.”
People v. Ellis, 569 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7× “[MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085, as amended by 1994 PA 110 .”
Show all 314 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(1) — 84 cases
People v. Gardner, 753 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2008).
People v. Brown, 822 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 2012). “MCL 769.13(1) contains additional time restrictions for seeking a sentence enhancement under the habitual-offender statutes and requires the prosecuting attorney to file “a written notice of his or her intent to do so within 21 days after the defendant's arraignment on the…”
People v. Richards, 891 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Siterlet, 829 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
People v. Marshall, 830 N.W.2d 414 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “The procedure for seeking sentence enhancement is prescribed in MCL 769.13, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) In a criminal action, the prosecuting attorney may seek to enhance the sentence of the defendant as provided under [MCL 769.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(1)(2) — 1 case
Wolter 290901 v. Christiansen (W.D. Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(2) — 61 cases
People v. Norfleet, 897 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Walker, 593 N.W.2d 673 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
People of Michigan v. Justin Duane Howard (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Robert Manuel-Guy McCoy (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Robert Manuel-Guy McCoy (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(3) — 3 cases
People v. Brown, 822 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 2012). “MCL 769.13(1) contains additional time restrictions for seeking a sentence enhancement under the habitual-offender statutes and requires the prosecuting attorney to file “a written notice of his or her intent to do so within 21 days after the defendant's arraignment on the…”
People v. KADE, 783 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2010).
People v. Chappell, 566 N.W.2d 42 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(3RD) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Rand Walter Gould (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(4) — 9 cases
People v. Marshall, 830 N.W.2d 414 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “The procedure for seeking sentence enhancement is prescribed in MCL 769.13, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) In a criminal action, the prosecuting attorney may seek to enhance the sentence of the defendant as provided under [MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Candace Renee Guyton (Mich. 2023).
163700_48_01.Pdf (Mich. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Thomas Lee Marney Sr (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Kevin Barnard Hicks (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(5) — 10 cases
People v. Green, 580 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “Under a former version of MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085, 2 a trial court was required to vacate a defendant’s underlying sentence before sentencing him as an habitual offender if the defendant’s habitual offender status was determined after the imposition of his sentence for the…”
People of Michigan v. David Alan Daily (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Michael Paul Parnell (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
People of Michigan v. Percy Edward Taylor (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Michael Arthur Farmar (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(5)(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Chester Larvell Starnes Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(5)(c) — 3 cases
People v. Green, 580 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “Under a former version of MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085, 2 a trial court was required to vacate a defendant’s underlying sentence before sentencing him as an habitual offender if the defendant’s habitual offender status was determined after the imposition of his sentence for the…”
People of Michigan v. Jeremy Abston (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Jeremy Abston (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(5)(d) — 8 cases
People v. Marshall, 830 N.W.2d 414 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “The procedure for seeking sentence enhancement is prescribed in MCL 769.13, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) In a criminal action, the prosecuting attorney may seek to enhance the sentence of the defendant as provided under [MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. William Jeffery Whitmore (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Andre Vertis Dent (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Dennis Dale Parrish (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Michael Paul Parnell (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13(6) — 8 cases
People of Michigan v. David Alan Daily (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Kevin Barnard Hicks (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Chester Larvell Starnes Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Billy Roy Fritz (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Billy Roy Fritz (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.