People v. Juntikka, 871 N.W.2d 555

Defendant pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 5 years’ probation and 12 months in county jail. The court imposed a $100 "probation enhancement fee."
Defendant moved for resentencing arguing the $100 fee was an unauthorized assessment; the trial court denied relief, describing the fee as funding items (gloves, cell phones) for probation officers.
Defendant sought leave to appeal; the Court of Appeals initially denied leave but the Michigan Supreme Court remanded for consideration in light of People v Cunningham.
The appellate panel reviewed whether MCL 771.3 authorized imposition of the $100 fee as (a) an “assessment” under MCL 771.3(2)(d) or (b) a cost “specifically incurred” under MCL 771.3(5).
The majority concluded the fee was an "assessment" (flat, preexisting $100 amount) but held MCL 771.3(2)(d) does not independently authorize courts to impose any assessment; and the fee was not a cost specifically incurred in defendant’s case under MCL 771.3(5).
The majority vacated the $100 probation enhancement fee and remanded; a dissent argued the fee was a permissible, case-specific supervision cost under MCL 771.3.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $100 fee is an "assessment" under MCL 771.3	Prosecution: fee is an assessment because it is a predetermined flat rate imposed by the court	Juntikka: (implicit) fee is not an improper assessment; it funds supervision	Majority: Yes, it qualifies as an "assessment."
Whether MCL 771.3(2)(d) independently authorizes courts to impose any assessment	Prosecution: (argued) court may impose assessments under §(2)(d) as condition of probation	Juntikka: statute limits costs/assessments to those authorized by statute; court lacks free authority	Majority: No; §(2)(d) does not grant independent authority to impose any assessment—only those separately authorized by statute (Cunningham rationale)
Whether the fee is a cost "specifically incurred" under MCL 771.3(5)	Prosecution: fee funds probation equipment/monitoring and is a supervision expense specific to probationers	Juntikka: fee reflects general operating costs, not expenses specifically tied to this defendant’s prosecution or supervision	Majority: Fee is a general operating cost, not specifically incurred in this case; not authorized under §(5)
Remedy: validity of fee on remand	Prosecution: fee should be upheld as authorized supervision cost	Juntikka: fee should be vacated as unauthorized	Held: Vacated the $100 probation enhancement fee and remanded for further proceedings (majority); dissent would have affirmed.

People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (court may impose only those costs the Legislature separately authorized)
People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (definition of "assessment" as imposed according to a predetermined rate)
People v Newton, 257 Mich App 61 (general investigative/agency operating costs not chargeable to defendant)
People v Teasdale, 335 Mich 1 (costs that are public-maintenance expenses are not properly charged to a convicted defendant)