Opinion
SC: 164895 COA: 360650.
04-14-2023
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy CARLISLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 24, 2022 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Bolden, J. (concurring).
I concur in the Court's decision to deny defendant's application for leave. In People v Jackson, 483 Mich. 271, 295, 769 N.W.2d 630 (2009), this Court held that MCL 769.1l "inherently calculates a prisoner's general ability to pay and, in effect, creates a statutory presumption of nonindigency." In short, sentencing courts are not required to conduct an ability-to-pay analysis before imposing fines, costs, and assessments as part of a sentence. A prisoner may attempt to rebut the presumption of nonindigency and petition the trial court for relief, but they "bear[] a heavy burden of establishing [their] extraordinary financial circumstances." Id. at 296, 769 N.W.2d 630 (emphasis added). This Court did not "lay out an extensive formal structure by which trial courts are to review these claims...." Id. Instead, we cited MCL 771.3(6)(b) as a guide and offered the following procedure:
MCL 769.1 l provides in relevant part:
If a prisoner under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections has been ordered to pay any sum of money as described in section 1k and the department of corrections receives an order from the court on a form prescribed by the state court administrative office, the department of corrections shall deduct 50% of the funds received by the prisoner in a month over $50.00 and promptly forward a payment to the court as provided in the order when the amount exceeds $100.00, or the entire amount if the prisoner is paroled, is transferred to community programs, or is discharged on the maximum sentence.
[W]hen reviewing a prisoner's claim, lower courts must receive the prisoner's petition and any proofs of his unique and extraordinary financial circumstances. Further, the lower courts should only hold that a prisoner's individual circumstances warrant amending or reducing the remittance order when, in its discretion, it determines that enforcement would work a manifest hardship on the prisoner or his immediate family. The trial courts are under no obligation to hold any formal proceedings. They are only required to amend the remittance order when § 1l's presumption of nonindigency is rebutted with evidence that enforcement would impose a manifest hardship on the prisoner or his immediate family. Beyond these basic parameters, we leave it to the trial courts, in their sound discretion, to decide how to adjudicate a prisoner's claim that his individual circumstances rebut § 1l's presumption of nonindigency. [Id. at 296-297, 769 N.W.2d 630 (emphasis added).]
This Court noted that "a more formal construct is desirable for this issue" and suggested that a court rule or statute should be promulgated to provide such guidance. Id. at 296 n 23, 769 N.W.2d 630. However, since Jackson, no formal guidance has been provided.
Jackson also indicated that this Court was considering adopting "guidelines specific to the determination of indigency for purposes of imposing and enforcing an obligation to pay the cost of a court-appointed attorney as part of ADM File No. 2008-23." Id. at 294, 769 N.W.2d 630. However, aside from MCR 6.430, which only pertains to postjudgment motions to amend restitution entered under the Crime Victim's Rights Act, MCL 780.751 et seq., no court rule addresses postjudgment modification of fines, costs, and other assessments under MCL 769.1k or how to evaluate the indigency of a defendant in posttrial enforcement matters. Therefore, this case illuminates the continued need to rethink our court rules and to determine whether this is the proper avenue for providing guidance. I also urge the Legislature to consider whether the dollar threshold in MCL 796.1l is still appropriate considering no amendments of the statute have been made since its effective date 17 years ago.