Imposition of attorney fees under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv); Fines in violation of Const 1963, art 8, § 9; Saginaw Pub Libraries v Judges of 70th Dist Court; People v Barber; Determining the cost of representation; People v Lewis; People v Williams (Unpub); Required factual findings; Consideration of whether the fees were satisfied by the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act (MIDCA); People v Sedgeman (Unpub); Consideration of ability to pay; People v Jackson

The court held that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) does not impose a fine, and thus, is not unconstitutional under Const 1963, art 8, § 9. And the trial court “did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to correct an invalid sentence because” its factual findings on the record were sufficient and it was not required to consider whether her “attorney fees were satisfied by the MIDCA or analyze [her] ability to pay when imposing attorney fees.” The court first addressed “whether the imposition of attorney fees for the expense of providing legal assistance to a defendant under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) constitutes a fine in violation of” Const 1963, art 8, § 9. It concluded that because the statute’s plain language evidenced “the Legislature did not intend for it to be a fine and the attorney fees imposed directly relate to the actual cost of providing defendant with legal assistance,” she did not establish that the statute “constitutes a punitive fine subject to Const 1963, art 8, § 9. MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) is not facially unconstitutional.” It next found that while the trial court did not make factual findings as to “the $400 attorney fee at sentencing, it did explain in its order denying defendant’s motion to correct an invalid sentence that $400 was a predetermined estimate that ‘applies for all defendants and their costs typically incurred prior to trial . . . .’ [It] further explained that the attorney fees covered meetings, court appearances, plea negotiations, and motion practice, and opined that $400 was ‘substantially less’ than the actual costs incurred, considering defendant ‘also had bond and tether hearings and attempted to withdraw her no contest plea.’” The court noted she did “not challenge any of these findings on appeal. [They] were sufficient to satisfy Lewis because the trial court acknowledged the amount of work the case required and estimated that the cost of providing legal services to defendant was substantially more than the predetermined fee it imposed. [It] did not err” as to its factual findings. The court also rejected her MIDCA argument. “Importantly, here defendant did not claim indigency at sentencing and offers no evidence to establish that she was or should have been determined to be partially or totally indigent.” Finally, under Jackson, “the trial court was not required to make findings” as to her ability to pay when it imposed the attorney fee. Affirmed.