People v. Konopka (On Remand)
309 Mich. App. 345
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Lindsey Konopka pleaded guilty to first-degree retail fraud and conspiracy to commit first-degree retail fraud; sentenced as a second habitual offender to prison terms and ordered to pay $500 in court costs.
- Defendant sought appellate review; Michigan Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the circuit court improperly imposed court costs in light of People v Cunningham and whether any error was plain.
- After Cunningham (which limited courts to imposing only statute-authorized costs), the Legislature enacted 2014 PA 352 amending MCL 769.1k to (temporarily) allow courts to impose costs reasonably related to actual court operating expenses without separate case-by-case calculation.
- The Court of Appeals addressed: (1) whether the amended MCL 769.1k authorizes the $500 costs; (2) whether the amendment is constitutional (separation of powers, equal protection/due process, ex post facto); and (3) whether the trial court provided a factual basis for the amount.
- Holding: the amended MCL 769.1k (2014 PA 352) authorizes imposition of court costs; the amendment survives constitutional challenges; but the case is remanded for the trial court to establish a factual basis that the $500 is reasonably related to actual court costs (or adjust the amount).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose court costs after Cunningham | Prosecution: 2014 PA 352 amended MCL 769.1k and authorizes courts to impose reasonable court operating costs without separate per-case calculation | Konopka: Cunningham controls and the post-Cunningham amendment should not justify costs here (and Legislature cannot override judicial interpretation) | Held: Amendment applies retroactively to cases on appeal; MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) authorizes such costs, so imposition was permissible, but remand required to establish factual basis for $500 |
| Requirement to separately calculate costs | Prosecution: amended subsection permits costs reasonably related to actual costs without separate per-case calculation (temporarily) | Konopka: costs must still be separately calculated and Cunningham’s limitation remains | Held: The amended statute allows broader authority (without separate per-case calc) but trial court must still show reasonableness; remand for factual basis |
| Separation of powers challenge to retroactive "curative" amendment | Prosecution: Legislature may retroactively correct statute construed by courts; Romein supports validity | Konopka: Legislature improperly dismantled judicial ruling and intruded on judicial power | Held: No separation-of-powers violation; Legislature may enact curative retroactive statutes so long as constitutional limits (due process, contracts, final judgment impairment) are respected |
| Equal protection / due process / ex post facto challenges | Prosecution: statute rationally furthers legitimate government purpose (funding court operations); costs are civil, not punitive | Konopka: Amendment creates unfair classes (timing-based), treats criminal vs civil litigants differently, and retroactively increases punishment | Held: Challenges rejected — rational basis review applies; statute rationally related to legitimate purposes; costs are civil (not punitive) and not ex post facto in effect |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (Mich. 2014) (held MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) did not by itself authorize imposition of any costs; courts may impose only statute-authorized costs)
- People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (Mich. 2014) (test for whether a legislative assessment is punitive for ex post facto analysis)
- Romein v. Gen. Motors Corp., 436 Mich 515 (Mich. 1990) (Legislature may retroactively amend statutes construed by judiciary; curative legislation can be constitutional)
- People v Sanders, 296 Mich App 710 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (earlier appellate precedent permitting generally reasonable court costs without per-case calculation, later limited by Cunningham)
- Zdrojewski v. Murphy, 254 Mich App 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (rational-basis review for economic and social legislation)