People of Michigan v. Ghazi Salameh Marji
330193
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- In 2010 Marji pleaded no contest to felonious assault; court ordered $22,774.42 restitution, one year jail, and two years probation.
- Marji, then ~65, claimed retirement income (~$1,000–$1,100/month Social Security) and made regular monthly payments (about $150/month) toward restitution over several years.
- Probation reports (2011–2015) showed fluctuating arrearages; probation and prosecutor speculated Marji previously owned a trucking business and may have assets, but produced no documentary proof in 2015.
- At the 2015 revocation hearing the trial court disbelieved Marji’s testimony about employment/assets, revoked probation, and sentenced him to prison (record unclear as to upper term).
- No evidence at the hearing established Marji’s current employment, earning capacity, or financial resources; he had paid roughly $8,000 toward restitution.
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make the statutorily and constitutionally required findings on ability to pay and willfulness before imprisoning Marji.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may revoke probation and imprison for failure to pay restitution without finding ability to pay and willfulness | Marji had or could have derived assets from prior trucking business; court could rely on those facts to revoke | Marji lacked current ability to pay, was making consistent payments, and prosecution offered no proof of present ability to pay | Court held revocation/imprisonment improper without findings on employment, earning ability, financial resources, and willfulness; remanded for new hearing |
| Whether the trial court adequately "considered" statutory factors before revocation | Prosecutor argued findings were implicit in court’s statements and prior PSIR info | Marji argued court did not make express, reviewable findings and relied on stale speculation | Court rejected implication argument: disbelief is not a considered finding and record lacks required determinations |
| Whether Marji’s appeal was moot due to parole/release | People argued release might moot appeal | Marji argued parole does not moot because parole conditions and possible return to custody remain | Court held appeal not moot; parolees remain in custody for purposes of revocation and remedy could affect parole status |
| Whether the record showed "willful" refusal to pay | Prosecutor alleged concealment or diversion of assets and failure to pay | Marji pointed to consistent payments (~$150/month) and limited Social Security income, showing good-faith efforts | Court found record supported that Marji made payments and did not show willfulness; trial court made no findings, so cannot sustain revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (Due Process requires inquiry into reasons for failure to pay; imprisonment permitted only if willful refusal or insufficient alternate measures)
- People v. Jackson, 483 Mich 271 (2009) (Courts must consider indigence and whether repayment would cause manifest hardship when determining ability to pay)
- People v. Collins, 239 Mich App 125 (1999) (Probation may not be revoked for failure to pay restitution absent finding of ability to pay and willful default)