People of Michigan v. Francis Edward Parks
This text of People of Michigan v. Francis Edward Parks (People of Michigan v. Francis Edward Parks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
March 8, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice
146140 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Plaintiff-Appellee, Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano, v SC: 146140 Justices COA: 311749 Isabella CC: 2011-001635-FH; 2011-001642-FH; 2011-002495-FH; 2011-001835-FH FRANCIS EDWARDS PARKS, Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2012 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.
MARKMAN, J. (concurring).
I concur in the Court’s order denying defendant’s application for leave to appeal. I write separately, however, to reiterate the concerns I expressed in People v Touchstone, 483 Mich 947, 948-949 (2009) (MARKMAN, J., dissenting), regarding the imposition of supervision fees. MCL 771.3c(1) clearly provides that in “determining the amount of the fee, the court shall consider the probationer’s projected income and financial resources.” The table contained in MCL 771.3c(1) then proceeds to instruct that if a probationer’s projected monthly income is less than $250, the amount of such fee “shall” be zero dollars. There was evidence here that defendant had no income, and if that evidence was accurate, no fee should have been imposed. Yet, absent any explanation, the trial court assessed defendant a $75 monthly fee. Accordingly, I believe the trial court erred. However, defendant did not object at sentencing or raise this issue in any postsentencing motion, and thus the issue is unpreserved. For that reason alone, I concur in the Court’s order denying defendant’s application for leave to appeal.
MCCORMACK, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J.
VIVIANO, J., not participating.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. March 8, 2013 _________________________________________ p0305 Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People of Michigan v. Francis Edward Parks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-francis-edward-parks-mich-2013.