THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
769.1k Imposition of fine, cost, or assessment; availability of information to defendant; reports; nonpayment of costs.
Sec. 1k.
(1) If a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or if the court determines after a hearing or trial that the defendant is guilty, both of the following apply at the time of the sentencing or at the time entry of judgment of guilt is deferred by statute or sentencing is delayed by statute:
(a) The court shall impose the minimum state costs as set forth in section 1j of this chapter.
(b) The court may impose any or all of the following:
(i) Any fine authorized by the statute for a violation of which the defendant entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the court determined that the defendant was guilty.
(ii) Any cost authorized by the statute for a violation of which the defendant entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the court determined that the defendant was guilty.
(iii) Until December 31, 2026, any cost reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial court without separately calculating those costs involved in the particular case, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Salaries and benefits for relevant court personnel.
(B) Goods and services necessary for the operation of the court.
(C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.
(iv) The expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant.
(v) Any assessment authorized by law.
(vi) Reimbursement under section 1f of this chapter.
(2) In addition to any fine, cost, or assessment imposed under subsection (1), the court may order the defendant to pay any additional costs incurred in compelling the defendant's appearance.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply even if the defendant is placed on probation, probation is revoked, or the defendant is discharged from probation.
(4) The court may require the defendant to pay any fine, cost, or assessment ordered to be paid under this section by wage assignment.
(5) The court may provide for the amounts imposed under this section to be collected at any time.
(6) Except as otherwise provided by law, the court may apply payments received on behalf of a defendant that exceed the total of any fine, cost, fee, or other assessment imposed in the case to any fine, cost, fee, or assessment that the same defendant owes in any other case.
(7) The court shall make available to a defendant information about any fine, cost, or assessment imposed under subsection (1), including information about any cost imposed under subsection (1)(b)(iii). However, the information is not required to include the calculation of the costs involved in a particular case.
(8) If the court imposes any cost under subsection (1)(b)(iii), no later than March 31 of each year the clerk of the court shall transmit a report to the state court administrative office in a manner prescribed by the state court administrative office that contains all of the following information for the previous calendar year:
(a) The name of the court.
(b) The total number of cases in which costs under subsection (1)(b)(iii) were imposed by that court.
(c) The total amount of costs that were imposed by that court under subsection (1)(b)(iii).
(d) The total amount of costs imposed under subsection (1)(b)(iii) that were collected by that court.
(9) No later than July 1 of each year, the state court administrative office shall compile all data submitted under subsection (8) during the preceding calendar year and submit a written report to the governor, the secretary of the senate, and the clerk of the house of representatives. The report described in this subsection must be made available to the public by the secretary of the senate and the clerk of the house of representatives.
(10) A defendant must not be imprisoned, jailed, or incarcerated for the nonpayment of costs ordered under this section unless the court determines that the defendant has the resources to pay the ordered costs and has not made a good-faith effort to do so.
History: Add. 2005, Act 316, Eff. Jan. 1, 2006 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 655, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2007 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 352, Imd. Eff. Oct. 17, 2014 ;-- Am. 2017, Act 64, Imd. Eff. June 30, 2017 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 151, Imd. Eff. Sept. 17, 2020 ;-- Am. 2022, Act 199, Imd. Eff. Oct. 7, 2022 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 38, Imd. Eff. Apr. 30, 2024
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 352 of 2014 provides:
"Enacting section 1. This amendatory act applies to all fines, costs, and assessments ordered or assessed under section 1k of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.1k, before June 18, 2014, and after the effective date of this amendatory act."
Enacting section 2 of Act 352 of 2014 provides:
"Enacting section 2. This amendatory act is a curative measure that addresses the authority of courts to impose costs under section 1k of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.1k, before the issuance of the supreme court opinion in People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (2014)."
Notes of Decisions
People v. Konopka (On Remand) (2015)
michctapp · cites it 86×
“In response, the prosecution argued that the imposition of costs was proper in light of the Legislature’s post -Cunningham amendment of MCL 769.1k. Defendant replied that this Court should disregard the prosecution’s response because the Legislature’s post-Cunningham amendment…”
People v. Johnson (2016)
michctapp · cites it 7×
“MCL 769.1k, as interpreted by People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145, 158 ; 852 NW2d 118 (2014), did not provide trial courts with separate statutory authority to impose court costs at sentencing.”
People of Michigan v. Robert Deshawn Lewis (2018)
mich · cites it 12×
“1k(1)(b)( iv ) does not include that same language. Compare MCL 769.1k(1)(b)( iii ) ("any cost reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial court without separately calculating those costs involved in the particular case .”
People v. Jackson (2009)
mich · cites it 7×
“MICHIGAN’S RECOUPMENT PROCEDURE FOR FEES FOR COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS Soon after Dunbar , our Legislature promulgated MCL 769.1k and MCL 769.1l. These statutes give Michigan trial courts the power to both impose a fee for a court-appointed attorney as part of a defendant’s…”
People v. Juntikka (2015)
michctapp · cites it 17×
“1k(1)(b)(ii) to give courts independent authority to impose any cost, it would not have specifically authorized certain costs in other subsections of MCL 769.1k. Id. at 154-155 . The Court also noted that numerous other penal statutes authorizing the specific imposition of costs…”
People v. Lloyd (2009)
michctapp · cites it 6×
“However, in 2005 PA 316 , the Legislature enacted MCL 769.1k, effective January 1, 2006, which governs the imposition of the fines, costs, or assessments and provides, in pertinent part: (1) If a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or if the court determines…”
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine (2012)
mich · cites it 2×
“For example, in People v Jackson,30 we considered whether a trial court may require a defendant to pay for a court- appointed attorney pursuant to MCL 769.1k without first determining the defendant’s ability to pay.”
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich · cites it 62×
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
People v. Earl (2014)
mich
“While the crime victim’s rights assessment is imposed at the time of sentencing, MCL 769.1k(1)(ic), in contrast to Cole , the Legislature did not expressly manifest an explicit intent to make the assessment part of the sentence itself.”
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park (2015)
michctapp · cites it 8×
“Finally, we find no merit to plaintiffs’ argument that the Legislature’s recent amendment of MCL 769.1k supports their position that the retiree healthcare fund assessment and the building fund assessment are actually costs subject to distribution.”
People v. Wallace (2009)
michctapp · cites it 7×
“The Legislature then enacted MCL 769.1k, which “[did] not eliminate the requirement set forth in Dunbar that the trial court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before ordering reimbursement of appointed counsel costs.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1) — 25 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(a) — 11 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b) — 34 cases
People of Michigan v. Robert Deshawn Lewis (2018)
mich
“1k(1)(b)( iv ) does not include that same language. Compare MCL 769.1k(1)(b)( iii ) ("any cost reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial court without separately calculating those costs involved in the particular case .”
People v. Johnson (2016)
michctapp
“MCL 769.1k, as interpreted by People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145, 158 ; 852 NW2d 118 (2014), did not provide trial courts with separate statutory authority to impose court costs at sentencing.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b)(i) — 12 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) — 53 cases
People v. Juntikka (2015)
michctapp
“1k(1)(b)(ii) to give courts independent authority to impose any cost, it would not have specifically authorized certain costs in other subsections of MCL 769.1k. Id. at 154-155 . The Court also noted that numerous other penal statutes authorizing the specific imposition of costs…”
People v. Konopka (On Remand) (2015)
michctapp
“In response, the prosecution argued that the imposition of costs was proper in light of the Legislature’s post -Cunningham amendment of MCL 769.1k. Defendant replied that this Court should disregard the prosecution’s response because the Legislature’s post-Cunningham amendment…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) — 189 cases
People v. Johnson (2016)
michctapp
“MCL 769.1k, as interpreted by People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145, 158 ; 852 NW2d 118 (2014), did not provide trial courts with separate statutory authority to impose court costs at sentencing.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b)(iii)(A) — 11 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b)(iii)(C) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) — 35 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(b)(v) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(ic) — 1 case
People v. Earl (2014)
mich
“While the crime victim’s rights assessment is imposed at the time of sentencing, MCL 769.1k(1)(ic), in contrast to Cole , the Legislature did not expressly manifest an explicit intent to make the assessment part of the sentence itself.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(1)(iv) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(10) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(2) — 3 cases
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(3) — 4 cases
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(5) — 3 cases
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(7) — 6 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(8)(c) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(9) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(b) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(b)(ii) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(b)(iii) — 23 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(b)(iv) — 7 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(iv) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l) — 3 cases
People v. Wallace (2009)
michctapp
“The Legislature then enacted MCL 769.1k, which “[did] not eliminate the requirement set forth in Dunbar that the trial court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before ordering reimbursement of appointed counsel costs.”
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Wallace (2009)
michctapp
“The Legislature then enacted MCL 769.1k, which “[did] not eliminate the requirement set forth in Dunbar that the trial court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before ordering reimbursement of appointed counsel costs.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b) — 4 cases
People v. Konopka (On Remand) (2015)
michctapp
“In response, the prosecution argued that the imposition of costs was proper in light of the Legislature’s post -Cunningham amendment of MCL 769.1k. Defendant replied that this Court should disregard the prosecution’s response because the Legislature’s post-Cunningham amendment…”
People v. Wallace (2009)
michctapp
“The Legislature then enacted MCL 769.1k, which “[did] not eliminate the requirement set forth in Dunbar that the trial court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before ordering reimbursement of appointed counsel costs.”
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b)(i) — 4 cases
People v. Konopka (On Remand) (2015)
michctapp
“In response, the prosecution argued that the imposition of costs was proper in light of the Legislature’s post -Cunningham amendment of MCL 769.1k. Defendant replied that this Court should disregard the prosecution’s response because the Legislature’s post-Cunningham amendment…”
People v. Johnson (2016)
michctapp
“MCL 769.1k, as interpreted by People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145, 158 ; 852 NW2d 118 (2014), did not provide trial courts with separate statutory authority to impose court costs at sentencing.”
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b)(ii) — 7 cases
People v. Konopka (On Remand) (2015)
michctapp
“In response, the prosecution argued that the imposition of costs was proper in light of the Legislature’s post -Cunningham amendment of MCL 769.1k. Defendant replied that this Court should disregard the prosecution’s response because the Legislature’s post-Cunningham amendment…”
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
People v. Juntikka (2015)
michctapp
“1k(1)(b)(ii) to give courts independent authority to impose any cost, it would not have specifically authorized certain costs in other subsections of MCL 769.1k. Id. at 154-155 . The Court also noted that numerous other penal statutes authorizing the specific imposition of costs…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b)(iii) — 5 cases
People v. Konopka (On Remand) (2015)
michctapp
“In response, the prosecution argued that the imposition of costs was proper in light of the Legislature’s post -Cunningham amendment of MCL 769.1k. Defendant replied that this Court should disregard the prosecution’s response because the Legislature’s post-Cunningham amendment…”
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b)(iii)(A) — 1 case
People v. Konopka (On Remand) (2015)
michctapp
“In response, the prosecution argued that the imposition of costs was proper in light of the Legislature’s post -Cunningham amendment of MCL 769.1k. Defendant replied that this Court should disregard the prosecution’s response because the Legislature’s post-Cunningham amendment…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b)(iz) — 1 case
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b)(u) — 1 case
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1k(l)(b)(zz) — 1 case
People v. Cunningham (2014)
mich
“” 1 Defendant filed a motion to correct what he viewed as an invalid sentence, arguing that the circuit court should reduce or vacate the amount of court costs imposed to reflect the amount of actual costs incurred by the circuit court in connection with defendant’s case.”
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.