887 N.W.2d 817
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Yann Iannucci and his ex-wife divorced in 2011 by consent judgment that included child support; the support order was later modified.
- From August 9, 2011, through January 11, 2013, Iannucci did not pay the court-ordered child support; the nonpayment itself was undisputed at trial.
- Prosecution charged Iannucci with felony nonsupport under MCL 750.165 for failing to pay the ordered support.
- Iannucci argued he should not have been required to include his veterans’ disability benefits as income when the support was calculated, claiming federal law precluded treating those benefits as income.
- Trial resulted in conviction, sentence of 60 months’ probation with five days in jail, and an order to pay $21,951 in unpaid support; Iannucci appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may relitigate the underlying support order in his criminal prosecution | The State: felony nonsupport requires proof of a support order, notice, and nonpayment; collateral attack on civil order is not permitted in criminal case | Iannucci: veteran disability benefits were improperly counted as income when support was set, so the order was invalid and he cannot be criminally liable for nonpayment | Court: Collateral attack barred — defendant may not challenge the civil support order in this criminal proceeding; conviction stands |
| Whether due process was violated by enforcing the support order and prosecuting nonsupport | The State: defendant had prior opportunities in family court to raise objections; due process satisfied | Iannucci: denial of relief in civil court means criminal enforcement violates due process | Court: No due process violation; defendant had opportunity to be heard in civil proceedings |
| Whether Iannucci could obtain superintending control to vacate the support order or conviction | The State: Iannucci failed to seek superintending control properly and has an adequate alternative remedy by appeal | Iannucci: requested broader relief including vacation of support order and conviction | Court: Request procedurally defective and improper; superintending control unavailable because other remedies existed |
| Whether five-day jail term and confinement constituted unconstitutional punishment or debtor’s prison | The State: imprisonment for nonpayment of child support is permitted; issue was unpreserved | Iannucci: five-day confinement was unconstitutionally unusual and denied medical care to a disabled veteran | Court: Review limited to plain error; historical authority permits imprisonment for child support default; claim abandoned for lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Herrick, 277 Mich. App. 255 (Mich. Ct. App.) (defines elements of felony nonsupport)
- People v. Adams, 262 Mich. App. 89 (Mich. Ct. App.) (notes felony nonsupport is a strict liability offense)
- Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914) (due process requires opportunity to be heard)
- Toth v. Toth, 242 Mich. 23 (Mich.) (imprisonment for default on child support is permitted; child support not treated as ordinary debt)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich.) (standard for plain-error review)
- Bd. of Ed. of the Standish–Sterling Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Court of Appeals, 483 Mich. 1252 (Mich.) (availability of appellate review and limits on extraordinary relief)