THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
771.4 Legislative intent; revocation of probation; procedure; sentence; section inapplicable to certain juveniles.
Sec. 4.
(1) It is the intent of the legislature that the granting of probation is a matter of grace requiring the agreement of the probationer to its granting and continuance.
(2) All probation orders are revocable subject to the requirements of section 4b of this chapter, but revocation of probation, and subsequent incarceration, should be imposed only for repeated technical violations, for new criminal behavior, as otherwise allowed in section 4b of this chapter, or upon request of the probationer. Hearings on the revocation must be summary and informal and not subject to the rules of evidence or of pleadings applicable in criminal trials.
(3) In its probation order or by general rule, the court may provide for the apprehension, detention, and confinement of a probationer accused of violating a probation condition.
(4) The method of hearing and presentation of charges are within the court's discretion, except that the probationer is entitled to a written copy of the charges constituting the claim that he or she violated probation and to a probation revocation hearing.
(5) Subject to the requirements of section 4b of this chapter, the court may investigate and enter a disposition of the probationer as the court determines best serves the public interest. If a probation order is revoked, the court may sentence the probationer in the same manner and to the same penalty as the court might have done if the probation order had never been made.
(6) 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.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17374 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 246, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 771.4 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 78, Eff. Oct. 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 520, Imd. Eff. Jan. 12, 1999 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 397, Eff. Apr. 1, 2021
Compiler's Notes:
Section 3 of Act 78 of 1988 provides: “This amendatory act shall take effect June 1, 1988.” This section was amended by Act 181 of 1988 to read as follows: “This amendatory act shall take effect October 1, 1988.”
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 4 of Act 105 of 1913, being CL 1915, § 2032; and Act 203 of 1925.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
155
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case:
People v. Kaczmarek, 628 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. 2001).
People v. Kaczmarek, 628 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. 2001).
· cites it 10× “[7] Because this case arises from a criminal prosecution for a crime committed before December 27, 1994, Proposal B does not apply to this defendant.”
People v. Harper, 739 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The Legislature provided a detailed definition *539 of probationary sentences in MCL 771.4: It is the intent of the legislature that the granting of probation is a matter of grace conferring no vested right to its continuance.”
People v. Rial, 249 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 8× “(Emphasis added.) A formal hearing is not required if the probationer admits at a preliminary hearing the alleged violations, and those violations are found by the court to be reasonable grounds for revoking probation under the law.”
People v. Gillman, 248 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 20× “Defendant raises several issues on appeal, one is dispositive. Defendant alleges that he received written notice of the probation violation charges 15 minutes before the hearing.”
People v. McCuller, 739 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 4× “MCL 771.4. It may be revoked without a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Hendrick, 697 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Further, MCL 771.4 states that if probation is revoked, the court may sentence the probationer to the same penalty as if probation had never been granted, but does not require that the same penalty be imposed.”
People v. Ritter, 464 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “MCL 771.4; MSA 28.1134 provides in pertinent part: It is the intent of the legislature that the granting of probation shall be a matter of grace conferring no vested right to its continuance.”
People v. Glass, 794 N.W.2d 49 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “The Legislature in MCL 771.4 outlined that “[i]f during the probation period the sentencing court deter *404 mines that the probationer is likely again to engage in an offensive or criminal course of conduct or that the public good requires revocation of probation, the court may…”
People v. Valentin, 559 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 16× “§ 771.4; M.S.A. § 28.1134, M.C.L. § 771.5(2); M.”
People v. Valentin, 577 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 6× “§ 771.4; M.S.A. § 28.1134, the general probation revocation provision has provided in relevant part: If a probation order is revoked, the court may proceed to sentence the probationer in the same manner and to the same penalty as the court might have done if the probation order…”
People v. Whiteside, 468 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. 1991).
· cites it 3× “After reciting that "[i]t is the intent of the legislature that the granting of probation shall be a matter of grace conferring no vested right to its continuance,” MCL 771.4; MSA 28.1134 provides that probation orders are revocable for "violation or attempted violation of a…”
People v. Hendrick, 683 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “34(2) and MCL 771.4 are applicable to this case and are therefore statutes in pari materia.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.4(1) — 7 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.4(2) — 5 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.4(5) — 4 cases
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.