People v. Cunningham
836 N.W.2d 232
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant pled guilty to obtaining a controlled substance by fraud; sentenced to 1–4 years and $1,000 in court costs plus other fees.
- On remand, the trial court heard that average actual court costs for Allegan Circuit criminal cases were $1,238.48.
- The court found the $1,000 costs reasonably related to incurred costs and the defendant did not challenge this.
- Defendant argues the calculation included overhead and failed to calculate case-specific costs.
- The majority holds overhead may be considered and that per Sanders a case-specific calculation is not mandatory in every case.
- Dissent argues Dilworth controls and overhead should not be included beyond case-specific costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May overhead costs be included in court-costs? | Sanders allows overhead. | Overhead not properly included per Dilworth. | Yes, overhead may be included. |
| Must costs be calculated as case-specific? | Costs can be general, not itemized per case. | Costs must be tailored to this case. | Not required to calculate particularized costs. |
| Is $1,000 reasonable given total court costs? | Prosecution established a reasonable relationship. | No challenge on this point by defendant. | Affirmed as reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Sanders (After Remand), 298 Mich App 105 (2012) (overhead costs may be imposed if reasonably related to actual costs)
- People v Sanders, 296 Mich App 710 (2012) (overhead costs may be imposed without full case-specific calculation)
- People v Dilworth, 291 Mich App 399 (2011) (overhead costs improper; costs must bear relation to expenses incurred for the case)
- People v Teasdale, 335 Mich 1 (1952) (maintenance/operating costs may be barred from defendant costs)
- People v Wallace, 245 Mich 310 (1929) (costs must bear relation to expenses actually incurred)