Sentencing credit; MCL 769.11b; People v Idziak; People v Prieskorn; People v Adkins; People v Givans; People v Allen; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to promptly move to revoke defendant’s bond; Prejudice; Whether the trial court had discretion to award defendant additional jail credit; People v Lewis (Unpub); Court costs & attorney fees; MCL 769.1k; People v Konopka (On Remand)

The court held that the trial court did not err in awarding defendant only 57 days of sentencing credit. But it did err in failing to provide a factual basis for the court costs and attorney fees it imposed, and in not articulating a determination as to his “ability to pay his attorney fees and any attendant late penalty.” As to sentence credit, the parties disagreed “on the meaning of MCL 769.11b.” The court agreed with the prosecution. “MCL 769.11b uses the term ‘because of’ to connect the words ‘has served any time in jail prior to sentencing’ and the words ‘being denied or unable to furnish bond for the offense of which he is convicted.’ Thus, to be entitled to jail credit, it is not sufficient that the defendant has served time in jail and was denied/unable to furnish bond for the offense at hand. Rather, the time in jail must be served ‘because of’ the fact that the defendant was denied/unable to furnish bond for the offense at hand. Once a defendant has started serving a sentence on a different case, the serving of that sentence becomes the reason that he is being incarcerated. His bond status on the subsequent case becomes irrelevant—regardless of whether the trial court properly updated paperwork to indicate that bond no longer is an option, and regardless of whether the defendant has the financial means to post a hypothetical bond for release, as the defendant then is actively serving time on a sentence in an unrelated case.” As a result, “pursuant to MCL 769.11b, defendant only was entitled to 57 days of jail credit, representing the time between his” 8/9/22 arrest in this case, and his 10/4/22 “sentencing in the separate probation-violation case.” As to his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to timely seek revocation of his bond in this case, the court agreed with the trial court that he could not establish prejudice. Revoking his bond “would not have satisfied the second statutory requirement” for MCL 769.11b to apply. As to his arguments related to costs, the court concluded “the trial court did not err by failing to waive court costs.” But it erred in other respects. On remand, it “should articulate a factual basis for both the court costs and the attorney fees[,]” and also adjudicate his “‘claim that his individual circumstances rebut § 1l’s presumption of nonindigency’” as to his remittance payments for his attorney fees. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.