Court costs; Constitutionality of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii); People v Johnson; Sentencing pursuant to a plea agreement; People v Killebrew; Scoring of OV 10; People v Russell; People v Wiley; SORA registration; Distinguishing People v Nunez. Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court affirmed defendant’s convictions for child sexually abusive activity and lying to a peace officer, and his sentences, but remanded for correction of his sentencing guidelines calculation and for amendment of his JOS. He first challenged the constitutionality of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), arguing “it incentivizes trial courts to convict defendants and impose costs against them, thus undermining a defendant’s due-process rights.” The court held that it was “bound by Johnson which established that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) is not facially unconstitutional regarding a defendant’s due-process rights.” Thus, defendant’s argument failed. He also argued “that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional separation-of-powers requirement by preventing trial courts from remaining neutral and impartial.” The court again disagreed. In Johnson, it “considered and rejected this same argument. [It] concluded that, even though MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) generates revenue, ‘nothing in the plain language of the statute directs the flow of money or creates a funding system for the trial courts.’” Thus, defendant’s constitutional claim on this ground also failed. He next argued “that he was not sentenced in accord with his plea agreement and” that he was entitled “to specific performance of the agreement or resentencing to a 36-month cap on his sentence.” The court noted that the “prosecution extended a plea offer to defendant that included a sentencing agreement of ‘36 months on the minimum pursuant to’” Killebrew. The court found that at “the plea hearing, defense counsel initially indicated confusion regarding the terms of the agreement. The record reflects that the prosecution, defense counsel, and the trial court discussed the matter to clarify the terms of the sentencing agreement. At the conclusion of that discussion, the parties and the trial court were of the same understanding that, for his two guilty pleas, the trial court would impose upon defendant a minimum 36-month prison term for his conviction of violating MCL 750.145c(2).” The court was “not persuaded that, after the trial court clarified the sentencing agreement’s terms and the parties agreed to those terms, defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily agree to the 36-month minimum sentence.” Thus, he was not entitled to relief. But he was “entitled to have the trial court perform a ministerial correction of the guidelines minimum sentence range calculation for his conviction of violating MCL 750.145c(2).”