People v. Reuther

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Reuther

309 N.W.2d 256, 107 Mich. App. 349

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 1981

DocketDocket 52046

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 309 N.W.2d 256 (People v. Reuther) 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. Reuther, 309 N.W.2d 256, 107 Mich. App. 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

[352]*352Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with delivery of a controlled substance (marijuana), MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15(7401). On March 31, 1980, he pled guilty to the offense of attempt to possess a controlled substance (marijuana) with intent to deliver, MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15(7401), MCL 750.92; MSA 28.287. On May 5, 1980, defendant was sentenced to serve six months in jail, fined $250, placed on probation for five years, and ordered to pay $1,250 in costs.

Defendant appeals by right and raises three issues, none of which require reversal.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in imposing costs in the amount of $1,250. Although case law holds that an assessment of costs in a criminal case must be reasonably related to the cost of prosecution, it is recognized that costs of probation may be a factor. People v Teasdale, 335 Mich 1; 55 NW2d 149 (1952). Specific language in MCL 771.3(3); MSA 28.1133(3) authorizes the trial court to consider all expenses, direct and indirect, which the public has been or may be put to in connection with the .apprehension, examination, trial, and probationary oversight of the probationer.

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the trial judge did explain his basis for assessing the amount in question on the record at the motion for resentenc-ing. As the trial court noted, the costs of probationary supervision for five years is alone sufficient justification for the costs imposed.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the trial court lacked authority to impose a period of probation in excess of two years. Although the crime to which defendant pled guilty is labeled a two-year misdemeanor, the determination of whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony for pur[353]*353poses of the limitations on length of probation in MCL 771.2; MSA 28.1132 is governed by MCL 761.1(g); MSA 28.843(g), People v Stiles, 99 Mich App 116, 121; 297 NW2d 631 (1980). Since the allowable maximum sentence exceeds one year, the crime in question is a felony and the five-year limit on probation applies.

Defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted was specifically rejected in People v Trupiano, 97 Mich App 416, 420; 296 NW2d 49 (1980), lv den 409 Mich 895 (1980), and is therefore without merit.

Affirmed.

Cynar, P.J., and D. F. Walsh, J., concurred.

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

[352]*352Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with delivery of a controlled substance (marijuana), MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15(7401). On March 31, 1980, he pled guilty to the offense of attempt to possess a controlled substance (marijuana) with intent to deliver, MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15(7401), MCL 750.92; MSA 28.287. On May 5, 1980, defendant was sentenced to serve six months in jail, fined $250, placed on probation for five years, and ordered to pay $1,250 in costs.

Defendant appeals by right and raises three issues, none of which require reversal.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in imposing costs in the amount of $1,250. Although case law holds that an assessment of costs in a criminal case must be reasonably related to the cost of prosecution, it is recognized that costs of probation may be a factor. People v Teasdale, 335 Mich 1; 55 NW2d 149 (1952). Specific language in MCL 771.3(3); MSA 28.1133(3) authorizes the trial court to consider all expenses, direct and indirect, which the public has been or may be put to in connection with the .apprehension, examination, trial, and probationary oversight of the probationer.

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the trial judge did explain his basis for assessing the amount in question on the record at the motion for resentenc-ing. As the trial court noted, the costs of probationary supervision for five years is alone sufficient justification for the costs imposed.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the trial court lacked authority to impose a period of probation in excess of two years. Although the crime to which defendant pled guilty is labeled a two-year misdemeanor, the determination of whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony for pur[353]*353poses of the limitations on length of probation in MCL 771.2; MSA 28.1132 is governed by MCL 761.1(g); MSA 28.843(g), People v Stiles, 99 Mich App 116, 121; 297 NW2d 631 (1980). Since the allowable maximum sentence exceeds one year, the crime in question is a felony and the five-year limit on probation applies.

Defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted was specifically rejected in People v Trupiano, 97 Mich App 416, 420; 296 NW2d 49 (1980), lv den 409 Mich 895 (1980), and is therefore without merit.

Affirmed.

Cynar, P.J., and D. F. Walsh, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 N.W.2d 256, 107 Mich. App. 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reuther-michctapp-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack