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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.5 (2026)

Alternative or combined penalties; power of court; rebuttable presumption; reasonable grounds for departure; show cause order; contempt order.

✓ 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


769.5 Alternative or combined penalties; power of court; rebuttable presumption; reasonable grounds for departure; show cause order; contempt order.

Sec. 5.

    (1) Subject to subsection (3), if a statute provides that an offense is punishable by imprisonment and a fine, the court may impose imprisonment without the fine or the fine without imprisonment.

    (2) Subject to subsection (3), if a statute provides that an offense is punishable by fine or imprisonment, the court may impose both the fine and imprisonment in its discretion.

    (3) There is a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.

    (4) The court may depart from the presumption under subsection (3) if the court finds reasonable grounds for the departure and states on the record the grounds for the departure.

    (5) If the court finds that the sentenced person has not complied with his or her sentence, including a nonjail or nonprobation sentence, the court may issue an order for the person to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt of court for not complying with the sentence. If the court finds the person in contempt, it may impose an additional sentence, including jail or probation if appropriate.

    (6) If the finding of contempt of court under subsection (5) is for nonpayment of fines, costs, or other legal financial obligations, the court must find on the record that the person is able to comply with the payments without manifest hardship, and that the person has not made a good-faith effort to do so, before imposing an additional sentence.

    (7) As used in this section, "serious misdemeanor" means that term as defined in section 61 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.811.

    

    

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17333 ;-- CL 1948, 769.5 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 216, Eff. Mar. 14, 2016 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 395, Eff. Mar. 24, 2021

FormerLaw Notes:

    See Act 115 of 1839; and Sec. 4 of Ch. 163 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6103; CL 1871, § 7987; How., § 9603; CL 1897, § 11973; CL 1915, § 15846.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: People v. Lueth, 660 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Lueth, 660 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 769.5 specifically states that “whenever it is provided that an offense shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, the court may impose both such fine and imprisonment in its discretion.”
People v. Wright, 298 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 769.5; MSA 28.1077 provides as follows: "Sec.”
People v. Krum, 132 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. 1965). “The people respond to the claim the sentence was illegal by referring to CL 1948, § 769.5 (Stat Ann § 28.1077), which provides in part: “Whenever it is provided that an offender shall be punished by * * * fine or imprisonment, the ■court may impose both such fine and…”
20250225_C369753_28_369753C1.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 15× “However, MCL 769.5 provides, in relevant part: (3) There is a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.”
In Re Thurston, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 769.5; M.S.A. § 28.1077. [32] Accordingly, we do not address the issue whether the language of M.”
People of the City of Auburn Hills v. James Thomas Mason Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “5(3) and (4) creating a rebuttable presumption against imposing jail or probation sentences for nonserious misdemeanors did not exist under the previous version of MCL 769.5, which was MCL 769.5, as amended by 2015 PA 216 .”
People of Michigan v. Tristian Michael Horney (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “Under MCL 769.5(5), If the court finds that the sentenced person has not complied with his or her sentence, including a nonjail or nonprobation sentence, the court may issue an order for the person to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt of court for not…”
People of Orion Twp. v. Anthony Leeds (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “ANALYSIS Defendant argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to 30-day jail terms for nonserious misdemeanor convictions for failure to display a valid license without reasonable grounds for rebutting the presumption against jail or…”
People v. Shier, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 769.5; MSA 28.1077. Accordingly, we do not address the issue whether the language of MCL 600.”
20230112_C360957_36_360957.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 60-day jail sentence for his conviction, contrary to MCL 769.5, which establishes a rebuttable presumption for a nonjail, nonprobationary sentence for a nonserious misdemeanor…”
D People of the City of Auburn Hills v. James Thomas Mason Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “In my view, the district court fully complied with the demands of MCL 769.5 and made an adequate record in support of its determination that reasonable grounds existed to depart from the rebuttable presumption that favored a no jail-no probation sentence.”
20250225_C369753_28_369753C1.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “5(3) by creating “a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.” Here, the trial court chose to mete out justice to an…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.5(3) — 5 cases
20250225_C369753_28_369753C1.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “However, MCL 769.5 provides, in relevant part: (3) There is a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.”
People of the City of Auburn Hills v. James Thomas Mason Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “5(3) and (4) creating a rebuttable presumption against imposing jail or probation sentences for nonserious misdemeanors did not exist under the previous version of MCL 769.5, which was MCL 769.5, as amended by 2015 PA 216 .”
People of Orion Twp. v. Anthony Leeds (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “ANALYSIS Defendant argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to 30-day jail terms for nonserious misdemeanor convictions for failure to display a valid license without reasonable grounds for rebutting the presumption against jail or…”
20250225_C369753_28_369753C1.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “5(3) by creating “a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.” Here, the trial court chose to mete out justice to an…”
D People of the City of Auburn Hills v. James Thomas Mason Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In my view, the district court fully complied with the demands of MCL 769.5 and made an adequate record in support of its determination that reasonable grounds existed to depart from the rebuttable presumption that favored a no jail-no probation sentence.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.5(4) — 5 cases
People of the City of Auburn Hills v. James Thomas Mason Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “5(3) and (4) creating a rebuttable presumption against imposing jail or probation sentences for nonserious misdemeanors did not exist under the previous version of MCL 769.5, which was MCL 769.5, as amended by 2015 PA 216 .”
People of Orion Twp. v. Anthony Leeds (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “ANALYSIS Defendant argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to 30-day jail terms for nonserious misdemeanor convictions for failure to display a valid license without reasonable grounds for rebutting the presumption against jail or…”
20250225_C369753_28_369753C1.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “However, MCL 769.5 provides, in relevant part: (3) There is a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.”
20250225_C369753_28_369753C1.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “5(3) by creating “a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.” Here, the trial court chose to mete out justice to an…”
D People of the City of Auburn Hills v. James Thomas Mason Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In my view, the district court fully complied with the demands of MCL 769.5 and made an adequate record in support of its determination that reasonable grounds existed to depart from the rebuttable presumption that favored a no jail-no probation sentence.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.5(5) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Tristian Michael Horney (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 769.5(5), If the court finds that the sentenced person has not complied with his or her sentence, including a nonjail or nonprobation sentence, the court may issue an order for the person to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt of court for not…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.5(6) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Tristian Michael Horney (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 769.5(5), If the court finds that the sentenced person has not complied with his or her sentence, including a nonjail or nonprobation sentence, the court may issue an order for the person to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt of court for not…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.5(7) — 2 cases
20230112_C360957_36_360957.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 60-day jail sentence for his conviction, contrary to MCL 769.5, which establishes a rebuttable presumption for a nonjail, nonprobationary sentence for a nonserious misdemeanor…”
20250225_C369753_28_369753C1.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “However, MCL 769.5 provides, in relevant part: (3) There is a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.”
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.