People of Michigan v. Phillip Edward Shenoskey, 332735

Consolidated appeals of two defendants: Shenoskey (Docket No. 332735) and Crawford (Docket No. 333375). Both appeals were by leave granted; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Shenoskey pleaded guilty to operating while intoxicated, third offense, and received 18 months to 5 years imprisonment; he challenged a $68 cost imposed under MCL 769.1j as an unconstitutional tax and as violating separation of powers and Art 4, § 32.
Crawford pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver marijuana and received 2 years’ probation; he challenged probation supervision fees and the constitutionality of a 20% late-payment penalty under MCL 600.4803.
Trial court in Shenoskey’s case imposed multiple assessments (crime victims’ rights assessment, court costs, attorney fees), triggering MCL 769.1j’s minimum $68 cost.
In Crawford’s case the court imposed $240 in probation oversight fees ($10/month for 24 months) consistent with the statutory fee table based on projected income and a condition requiring employment 30+ hours/week.
Crawford argued the 20% late-penalty is usurious and violates due process and equal protection; the statute authorizes waiver of the penalty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $68 cost under MCL 769.1j is an unconstitutional tax or violates separation of powers or Art 4, § 32	State: statute validly imposes costs when fines/assessments/fees are ordered	Shenoskey: $68 is a tax, violates separation of powers and the requirement that tax laws "distinctly state the tax"	Court: cost is a tax but not invalid under separation of powers or Art 4, § 32; Cameron analysis applies; no relief
Whether the trial court failed to consider income when setting probation supervision fees under MCL 771.3c	State: court followed statute and fee table; projected income governs	Crawford: court did not consider his (current) income before imposing fees	Court: no error—statute uses projected income; condition requiring employment supports the fee level imposed
Whether the 20% late-payment penalty under MCL 600.4803 is usurious	State: Legislature may set penalty rates; statute authorizes waiver and procedure	Crawford: 20% is usurious and unconstitutional as applied to those unable to pay; violates due process and equal protection	Court: not usurious (a penalty, not interest); waiver mechanism avoids due-process problem; equal protection claim fails—statute applies uniformly

People v Harper, 479 Mich. 599 (Mich. 2007) (standard: de novo review of constitutional questions)
People v Kern, 288 Mich. App. 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error review standards)
Bearden v Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (cannot revoke probation for nonpayment without inquiry into inability to pay)