THE STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT ACT
Act 253 of 1935
800.403a Cooperation of prisoner.
Sec. 3a.
(1) A prisoner shall fully cooperate with the state by providing complete financial information for purposes under this act.
(2) The failure of a prisoner to fully cooperate as provided in subsection (1) may be considered for purposes of a parole determination under section 35 of Act No. 232 of the Public Acts of 1953, being section 791.235 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: Add. 1984, Act 282, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1984
Constitutionality Notes:
The Prison Reimbursement Act was intended to apply to all inmates of the state penal system and was not limited to the inmates of the three penal institutions named in the act and in existence at the time of its passage; nor is the act violative of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. State Treasurer v Wilson, 423 Mich 138; 347 NW2d 770 (1985).
Notes of Decisions
State Treasurer v. Sprague, 772 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “403a is unconstitutional because it violates federal law, reasoning we have already concluded to be meritless, and because a defendant's violation of the statute may be considered by the Parole Board in its determinations. MCL 800.403a provides: (1) A prisoner shall fully…”
State Treasurer v. Chantaz M Swoope (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “According to the attorney general, the Swoopes’ continued refusal to fully account for Chantaz’s assets, coupled with significant and unexplained cash withdrawals and transfers shown in defendants’ bank accounts, created a reasonable inference that defendants were deliberately…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.403a(1) — 1 case
State Treasurer v. Chantaz M Swoope (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“According to the attorney general, the Swoopes’ continued refusal to fully account for Chantaz’s assets, coupled with significant and unexplained cash withdrawals and transfers shown in defendants’ bank accounts, created a reasonable inference that defendants were deliberately…”
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.