People v. Davis

• Decision Date: 14 July 2022
• Docket Number: 358967
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAY ANTHONY-CARLTON DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAY ANTHONY-CARLTON DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 358967

Court of Appeals of Michigan

July 14, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Isabella Circuit Court LC No. 2020-001466-FH

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and GADOLA and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following his probation violation, the trial court resentenced Jay Anthony-Carlton Davis for his original convictions of possession of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), and possession of less than 25 grams of heroin, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). At the resentencing hearing, the court did not address the $1,091 in costs, fines, and assessments it intended to impose against Davis in the new judgment of sentence. This was error. The trial court also erred in failing to establish a factual basis for the attorney fees and court costs it assessed. We vacate the new judgment of sentence and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In January 2021, Davis pleaded guilty to two drug possession charges. The trial court sentenced Davis as a third-habitual offender to concurrent terms of 10 months in jail and three years' probation in addition to ordering Davis to pay $1,016 in costs, fines, and assessments. The court ordered Davis to report to the jail two days after sentencing and to avoid using or possessing controlled substances in the meantime. Davis did not report as ordered and tested positive for methamphetamine when he was apprehended two weeks later.

Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of violating the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked Davis's probation as permitted by MCL 771.4(2). Probation revocation "clears the way for a resentencing on the original offense." People v Hendrick, 472 Mich. 555, 562; 697 N.W.2d 511 (2005). The court therefore had discretion to either sentence Davis "in the same manner and to the same penalty" as in the initial judgment of sentence or to impose entirely new sentences for the possession convictions. Id. at 561-562. The court chose the second option and sentenced Davis for the two drug possession convictions to concurrent terms of 1/ to 8 years and 1/ to 20 years' imprisonment. The court failed to mention any fines, costs, or assessments at the probation violation sentencing hearing, but ordered Davis to pay $1,091 in the new judgment of sentence.

Davis sought leave to appeal the imposition of costs, fines, and assessments. This Court granted the application. People v Davis, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 30, 2021 (Docket No. 358967).

II. ANALYSIS

To preserve a challenge to the assessment of costs, fines, and assessments, a defendant must object in the lower court. People v Konopka (On Remand), 309 Mich.App. 345, 356; 869 N.W.2d 651 (2015). Davis did not object at his initial sentencing and brought no motion following the entry of the new judgment of sentence. Our review is therefore limited to plain error affecting Davis's substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 763; 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). However, we review de novo the proper interpretation and application of the relevant statutes. People v Bruce, 504 Mich. 555, 562; 939 N.W.2d 188 (2019).

MCL 769.1k(1)(a) provides that "[i]f a defendant enters a plea of guilty . . . [t]he court shall impose the minimum state costs as set forth in [MCL 769.1j]." MCL 769.1j(1)(a) provides that if a defendant is convicted of a felony, "the court shall order" the defendant to pay costs of $68. "Shall" is a mandatory term, Ellison v Dep't of State, 320 Mich.App. 169, 180; 906 N.W.2d 221 (2017), and the trial court was required to impose $136 in minimum state costs as Davis pleaded guilty to two felonies.

MCL 780.905(1)(a) similarly mandates the trial court to assess $130 for the crime victim's fund when a defendant is convicted of a felony, again stating that the court "shall order" this assessment. The trial court had no discretion to omit the state costs or crime victim's fund assessment from the judgment of sentence. The trial court did not err in imposing these charges.

Other costs, fines, and assessments, however, are within the trial court's discretion. See Ionia Ed Ass'n v Ionia Pub Schs, 311 Mich.App. 479, 493 n 6; 875 N.W.2d 756 (2015) (noting that the term "may" denotes discretion). Here, the court exercised its discretion and imposed $200 in fines and $350 in attorney fees. The court imposed $200 in court costs in the original judgment of sentence, but increased the costs to $275 after Davis's probation violation. MCL 769.1k(1)(b) provides for these discretionary assessments when a defendant enters a guilty plea as follows:

The court may impose any or all of the following:

(i) Any fine authorized by the statute for a violation of which the defendant entered a plea of guilty ....

* * *

(iii) Until October 1, 2022, any cost reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial court without separately calculating those costs involved in the particular case, including, but not limited to, the following:

(A) Salaries and benefits for relevant court personnel.

(B) Goods and services necessary for the operation of the court.

(C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.

(iv) The expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant.

The court acted within its discretion in imposing $200 in fines under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(i). Davis was convicted of violating MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i) and MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). These statutes permit a court to impose a fine of not more than $15,000 and $25,000 respectively. The court imposed a fine of $200, within the statutory permissible range.

The court also acted within its discretion in ordering Davis to contribute to the cost of his legal fees. MCR 6.005(C) permits a court to "require contribution to the cost of providing a lawyer" if the court determines that the defendant "is able to pay part of the cost." However, the trial court was required to separately calculate the actual cost of providing legal...