Opinion
No. 352193
02-25-2021
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLAUDE PAUL BRAZIEL III, Defendant-Appellant.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 18-000519-FC Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and BORRELLO and RICK, JJ. RICK, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result only. I write separately to discuss defendant's concerns regarding the imposition of excessive court costs. I agree with the majority that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) allows trial courts to "impose state costs against a criminal defendant if reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial court." People v Stevens, 318 Mich App 115, 121; 896 NW2d 815 (2016) (quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). However, I join Chief Justice MCCORMACK in her concerns raised in People v Cameron, 504 Mich 927 (2019), wherein she aptly recognized:
"No matter how neutral and detached a judge may be, the burden of taxing criminal defendants to finance the operations of his court, coupled with the intense pressures from local funding units (and perhaps even from the electorate), could create at least the appearance of impropriety. Assigning judges to play tax collector erodes confidence in the judiciary and may seriously jeopardize a defendant's right to a neutral and detached magistrate." [Id. at 928 (MCCORMACK, C.J., concurring).]A trial court is not required to consider a defendant's ability to pay before imposing discretionary costs under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii). Not only is this a potential appearance of impropriety, but it is squarely an access to justice issue. At a minimum, there should be an ability-to-pay analysis undertaken prior to imposing court costs on the impoverished, who have little or no ability to reimburse their courts for the services rendered. I urge the legislature to consider adopting the recommendations of the Trial Court Funding Commission to address court funding in a fair manner to all, including those who are indigent.
As it relates to court-appointed attorney fees, our Supreme Court has held that a trial court is not required to consider a defendant's ability to pay "until the imposition of the fee is enforced." People v Jackson, 483 Mich 271, 292-293, 294; 769 NW2d 630 (2009). As recognized in Jackson, "MCL 769.1l inherently calculates a prisoner's general ability to pay and, in effect, creates a statutory presumption of nonindigency." Id. at 295. Further, an "imprisoned defendant bears a heavy burden of establishing [their] extraordinary financial circumstances" in order to rebut the presumption of nonindigency. Id. at 296. Additionally, a defendant may be subject to a 20% late penalty if costs and fees are not paid with 56 days of the due date. MCL 600.4803(1).
Trial Court Funding Commission Final Report, issued September 6, 2019, available at <https://www.michigan.gov/documents/treasury/TCFC_Final_Report_9-6-2019_667167_7.pdf> (accessed February 11, 2021). --------
/s/ Michelle M. Rick