in Re Taylor Anne Killich
329941
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 20, 2017Background
- Juvenile respondent Taylor Killich pleaded no contest to poisoning (MCL 750.436(2)(a)) and was placed on three months’ probation with conditions including community service and urine screens.
- A $100 flat "probation supervision fee" was imposed and the trial court denied respondent’s motion to waive the fee.
- Respondent challenged the $100 fee as unauthorized under the Juvenile Code; petitioner relied on MCL 712A.18(1)(b), (3), and (12) to support the fee.
- Probation supervisor testified the $100 fee is a standard flat charge for all juveniles and funds are remitted to the county general fund.
- The referee denied relief; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory authority for juvenile reimbursements and assessments and considered People v Juntikka and related authorities.
- The Court vacated the $100 fee and remanded for a corrected disposition order.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 712A.18(1)(b) authorizes $100 probation supervision fee | Court may order minimum state cost; juvenile must pay at least statutory minimum and thus fee is authorized | Fee exceeds or is distinct from the $68 minimum state cost and not authorized by §18(1)(b) | §18(1)(b) only authorizes the $68 minimum state cost for a felony; it does not authorize the $100 fee |
| Whether MCL 712A.18(12) (crime victim assessment) authorizes $100 fee | §18(12) requires payment of assessments per MCL 780.905; thus fee is authorized as assessment | Statute only mandates the statutorily prescribed assessment, not a $100 probation fee | §18(12) authorizes the $25 juvenile crime-victim assessment (MCL 780.905(3)), not the $100 fee |
| Whether MCL 712A.18(3) authorizes a flat $100 reimbursement to the court | §18(3) permits reimbursement provisions in disposition orders; court may impose reimbursement | Reimbursement must reflect actual cost-of-service for that juvenile; a flat blanket fee is not a reimbursement | §18(3) permits reimbursement provisions but contemplates reimbursement of actual costs for services; a flat $100 standard fee not tied to individual cost is unauthorized |
| Whether a pre-set, flat probation fee can be imposed before costs are incurred | Petitioner contends reimbursement can be ordered in disposition and remitted to general fund | Respondent argues reimbursement must reflect expenses already or actually incurred for that juvenile | Court holds reimbursement may be ordered in disposition before exact costs known, but statute requires reimbursement for “the cost of service”; a uniform flat fee not tied to actual cost is not authorized |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Juntikka, 310 Mich App 306 (court rejected a flat $100 adult probation "enhancement" fee because it was not tied to the specific costs incurred for the defendant)
- In re Brzezinski, 214 Mich App 652 (1995) (discussed timing and inclusion of reimbursement orders in juvenile disposition; Supreme Court later endorsed reasoning about reimbursement ordering)
- People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (statutory authorization required to impose penalties or costs)
- People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (distinguishing adult crime-victim assessments from juvenile assessment amounts)