People v. Earl, 495 Mich. 33

Earl bank-robbed in Southfield, Michigan in 2010, and was convicted of bank robbery and two counts of possessing under 25 grams of a controlled substance.
At the time of offenses, MCL 780.905 required a $60 crime victim’s rights assessment; the statute was amended to $130 effective December 16, 2010.
Earl was sentenced on February 15, 2011 and ordered to pay $130 under MCL 780.905(1)(a).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the $130 assessment; the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The central question is whether retroactive application of the increased assessment violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses.
The Court held the increased assessment is civil, not punitive, and does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Civil remedy vs. punitive label	Earl contends the assessment is punitive.	State argues the assessment is civil in nature.	The assessment is civil in nature.
Punitive purpose or effect notwithstanding civil label	Even as a civil remedy, it has punitive purpose/effect.	It does not have punitive purpose/effect.	Not punitive in purpose or effect.
Ex Post Facto violation on retroactive increase	Increased assessment retroactively punishes past conduct.	Civil remedy retained without violating Ex Post Facto Clauses.	No Ex Post Facto violation.

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (civil vs. criminal punishment analysis; two-step inquiry)
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1958) (principles on punitive vs. remedial purposes)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (Mendoza-Martinez factors for punitivity analysis)
Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1997) (label/location of statute not controlling; regulatory context)
Cole v. State, 491 Mich. 324 (Mich. 2012) (distinguishes criminal punishment vs. civil remedy based on legislative intent)
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1996) (nonpunitive purpose can govern regulatory schemes)