349 Mich. App. 35
Mich. Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant (Godfrey) had a prior conviction for possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender; she appealed and the conviction was affirmed but sentence vacated for resentencing.
- While the appeal was pending, the trial court granted bond pending appeal and ordered defendant to be outfitted with a GPS tether; the court required payment of an installation fee plus two months of tether fees up front.
- At resentencing, the court imposed 12 months in jail (with credit for time served), assessed state costs and a $615 tether-fee obligation; defendant acknowledged owing the $615 and paid it promptly after sentencing.
- On appeal, defendant argued the tether fees were not statutorily authorized and that the court failed to state the entire sentence (including tether fees) on the record as required by court rule.
- The Court of Appeals held that tether fees are authorized under MCL 769.1k(2) because a GPS tether is a device used to secure a defendant’s appearance; the court also found the trial court’s failure to state the fees on the record was plain error but not reversible because defendant knew of, admitted, and paid the fees. The judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tether/GPS fees are statutorily authorized | MCL 769.1k(2) permits courts to order payment of costs incurred in compelling a defendant’s appearance; a GPS tether secures appearance, so fees are allowed | Tether fees are not authorized by statute | Fees are authorized under MCL 769.1k(2); tether is a tool to compel appearance, so charging the cost was permissible |
| Whether failure to state tether fees on the record requires reversal | Any omission was harmless; defendant acknowledged owing and paid the $615, so no prejudice | Court failed to state entire sentence on the record per MCR 6.425(D)(1)(d), warranting reversal | Omission was plain error but did not affect substantial rights or fairness; not reversible given defendant’s acknowledgment and prompt payment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Konopka, 309 Mich App 345 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (preservation rule for challenges to costs and assessments)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error standard for forfeited issues)
- People v Lee, 489 Mich 289 (Mich. 2011) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- People v Traver, 502 Mich 23 (Mich. 2018) (statutory and court-rule interpretation principles)
- In re Killich, 319 Mich App 331 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (court may not impose costs without statutory authorization)
- People v Roseburgh, 215 Mich App 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (statutory-construction principles)
- People v Britt, 202 Mich App 714 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (discussion of GPS tether as court surveillance tool)