Go to Law Offices of Michael B. Skinner

Recent Entries
Probation Fees
Plaintiff's expert in a medical malpractice action
Medical Malpractice Notice of Intent III
Medical Malpractice Notice of Intent II
A more severe sentence for a corrections officer?
Delivery of Heroin Causing Death
Precedent and Stare Decisis
Parental Rights Termination Appeals
Michigan Supreme Court Unity
Michigan Supreme Court Disunity
Peremptory Challenges and Due Process
Domestic Violence and the Confrontation Clause
Modification of Parenting Time in Michigan
Parental Rights Termination and the ADA
Interstate Agreement on Detainers
The irony!
Notice of Intent
For those with habeas deadline problems
Remember what I said about preservation?
Don't take even small wins for granted
E-Filing Is Moving Forward
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Duress and Felony Murder
Ouch!
A few cases to wrap-up for the year


ARCHIVES

RSS Feed

Blogroll
Abstract Appeal (Florida)
Appellate Law & Practice
Confrontation Blog
Crim Law
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Direct Appeal (CA10 Criminal Cases)
Florida Appellate Law
Fourth Amendment
Have Opinion Will Travel
How Appealing
Michigan Auto Law
Michigan Bankruptcy Law
Michigan Business Law
Michigan Collection Law
Michigan Construction Law
Michigan Elder Law
Michigan Health Care Law
Michigan Long Term Disability Law
Michigan Real Estate Law
Michigan Workers' Compensation Law
Military Veteran Law
Ninth Circuit Criminal Appeal
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law and Policy
Sixth Circuit Blog
Split Circuits (tracking federal circuit court splits)
The Volokh Conspuracy
Wall Street Journal Law Blog


© 2005  Michael B. Skinner Law Offices Website
Blog Home
Michigan Appellate Law

Probation Fees


by Michael B. Skinner · Monday May 4, 2009 4:16 pm  PERMALINK
Trial courts are veterans at assessing costs at sentencing. However, they also shoot from the hip sometimes. MCL 771.3c sets a schedule for monthly payment of probation fees based on a defendant's income. In People v. Touchstone, Justice Markman dissented from an order denying leave to appeal because the trial court ordered the defendant to pay $10 a month when his income did not justify any monthly payment under the statute.

Only Justice Kelly joined Justice Markman's dissent. Was the issue unpreserved? Did the other justices figure, "Eh, what's $10?" The violation seems clear as framed in the dissent. Maybe it's because the trial court can order a higher payment if it justifies the order, so the justices figured that schedule is not really really mandatory.