People v. Hamilton

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Hamilton

269 N.W.2d 693, 84 Mich. App. 601, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2525

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 6, 1978

DocketDocket No. 77-2989

StatusPublished

This text of 269 N.W.2d 693 (People v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hamilton, 269 N.W.2d 693, 84 Mich. App. 601, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2525 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Henry Hamilton failed to preserve for appeal his argument that revocation of his probation for failure to pay restitution was based on his indigency, and was therefore unconstitutionally discriminatory under the Fourteenth Amendment. US Const, Am XIV. Appeal is therefore precluded. People v Billy Williams, 66 Mich App 67, 72; 238 NW2d 407 (1975).

Furthermore, examination of the record shows that defendant admitted having violated other conditions of probation in addition to nonpayment of restitution.

The trial judge did not err in revoking defendant’s probation, but he did err by sentencing defendant to five to ten years or payment of $7,500. Under the statute as worded, the court was limited to either a sentence of 10 years in prison or a fine of not more than $5,000, not both. Both imprisonment and a fine may not be conjoined in the one [603]*603sentence so as to make defendant’s ability to pay the determinant of imprisonment were he not able to pay. He may be sentenced to prison or fine, one only.

Remanded to another judge for resentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant Henry Hamilton failed to preserve for appeal his argument that revocation of his probation for failure to pay restitution was based on his indigency, and was therefore unconstitutionally discriminatory under the Fourteenth Amendment. US Const, Am XIV. Appeal is therefore precluded. People v Billy Williams, 66 Mich App 67, 72; 238 NW2d 407 (1975).

Furthermore, examination of the record shows that defendant admitted having violated other conditions of probation in addition to nonpayment of restitution.

The trial judge did not err in revoking defendant’s probation, but he did err by sentencing defendant to five to ten years or payment of $7,500. Under the statute as worded, the court was limited to either a sentence of 10 years in prison or a fine of not more than $5,000, not both. Both imprisonment and a fine may not be conjoined in the one [603]*603sentence so as to make defendant’s ability to pay the determinant of imprisonment were he not able to pay. He may be sentenced to prison or fine, one only.

Remanded to another judge for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 N.W.2d 693, 84 Mich. App. 601, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamilton-michctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack