THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
771.3c Probation supervision fee; enforcement of probation oversight fee; waiver of fee; person subject to other obligations arising out of criminal proceeding; applicability of section to certain juveniles; "electronic monitoring device" defined.
Sec. 3c.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the circuit court shall include in each order of probation for a defendant convicted of a crime 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 60 months, if a defendant is placed on probation supervision without an electronic monitoring device. If a defendant is placed on probation supervision with an electronic monitoring device under this subsection, the circuit court's order shall include in its order 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 60 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.
(2) The circuit court may waive the fee required to be collected under this section if the court determines that the supervised individual is indigent.
(3) If a person who is subject to a probation supervision fee is also subject to any combination of fines, costs, restitution orders, assessments, or payments arising out of the same criminal proceeding, the allocation of money collected for those obligations must be as otherwise provided in section 22 of chapter XV.
(4) This section does not apply to a juvenile placed on probation and committed under section 1(3) or (4) of chapter IX to an institution or agency described in the youth rehabilitation services act, 1974 PA 150, MCL 803.301 to 803.309.
(5) 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. 1989, Act 184, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 185, Eff. Oct. 1, 1993 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 520, Imd. Eff. Jan. 12, 1999 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 483, Eff. Oct. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 165, Eff. Mar. 19, 2020
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case:
People v. Juntikka, 871 N.W.2d 555 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
People v. Juntikka, 871 N.W.2d 555 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “3(l)(d) authorizes a specific supervision assessment, which requires a probationer who was sentenced in the circuit court to “pay a probation supervision fee as prescribed in [MCL 771.3c].” 2 Further, other penal statutes authorize specific assessments that are not addressed…”
People v. Valentin, 559 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 771.3c; M.S.A. § 28.1133(3), M.C.L. § 771.”
People v. Touchstone, 767 N.W.2d 422 (Mich. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Finally, I concur with Justice Markman's dissenting statement regarding the assessment of probation fees and would include in the remand order directions to the trial court to properly apply MCL 771.3c. MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). Because the trial court failed to follow the…”
People of Michigan v. Diontee Laquinn Beavers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “As it concerns the $900 probation supervision fee, MCL 771.3c provides a schedule for determining the fee based on the probationer’s income.”
People of Michigan v. Diontee Laquinn Beavers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “As it concerns the $900 probation supervision fee, MCL 771.3c provides a schedule for determining the fee based on the probationer’s income.”
People of Michigan v. Francis Edward Parks (Mich. 2013).
· cites it 2× “MCL 771.3c(1) clearly provides that in “determining the amount of the fee, the court shall consider the probationer’s projected income and financial resources.”
People of Michigan v. Kevin Thomas Vayko (Mich. 2016).
“Furthermore, the circuit court shall impose probation-supervision fees in accordance with MCL 771.3c. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
People of Michigan v. Kevin Thomas Vayko (Mich. 2016).
“Furthermore, the circuit court shall impose probation-supervision fees in accordance with MCL 771.3c. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
People of Michigan v. James Howard Shaul (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The prosecutor concedes that the trial court improperly imposed a probation oversight fee under MCL 771.3c because defendant was not sentenced to probation.”
People of Michigan v. Phillip Edward Shenoskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“MCL 771.3c(1) provides as follows: The circuit court shall include in each order of probation for a defendant convicted of a crime that the department of corrections shall collect a probation supervision fee of not more than $135.”
People v. Vayko, 880 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 2016).
“Furthermore, the circuit court shall impose probation-supervision fees in accordance with MCL 771.3c. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
People of Michigan v. Carmen Chirl Tolonen (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“7341] for a second time, the court, without entering a judgment of guilt with the consent of the accused, may defer further proceedings and place the individual on probation upon terms and conditions that shall include, but are not limited to, payment of a probation supervision…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.3c(1) — 5 cases
People v. Juntikka, 871 N.W.2d 555 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“3(l)(d) authorizes a specific supervision assessment, which requires a probationer who was sentenced in the circuit court to “pay a probation supervision fee as prescribed in [MCL 771.3c].” 2 Further, other penal statutes authorize specific assessments that are not addressed…”
People v. Touchstone, 767 N.W.2d 422 (Mich. 2009).
“Finally, I concur with Justice Markman's dissenting statement regarding the assessment of probation fees and would include in the remand order directions to the trial court to properly apply MCL 771.3c. MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). Because the trial court failed to follow the…”
People of Michigan v. Francis Edward Parks (Mich. 2013).
“MCL 771.3c(1) clearly provides that in “determining the amount of the fee, the court shall consider the probationer’s projected income and financial resources.”
People of Michigan v. Phillip Edward Shenoskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“MCL 771.3c(1) provides as follows: The circuit court shall include in each order of probation for a defendant convicted of a crime that the department of corrections shall collect a probation supervision fee of not more than $135.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.3c(l) — 1 case
People v. Touchstone, 767 N.W.2d 422 (Mich. 2009).
“Finally, I concur with Justice Markman's dissenting statement regarding the assessment of probation fees and would include in the remand order directions to the trial court to properly apply MCL 771.3c. MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). Because the trial court failed to follow the…”
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.