Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v SHAWN DEREK WEBSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED April 29, 2008

No. 273789 Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 04-002156-FH

Before: Wilder, P.J., and Murphy and Meter, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant pleaded no contest to armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and was sentenced to 51 months to 25 years' imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay state costs, court costs, a crime victim's assessment fee, and attorney fees, all totaling $1,900, as well as restitution in the amount of $62. He appeals by delayed leave granted, challenging the trial court's dismissal, without prejudice, of his post-sentencing motion to prohibit the Department of Corrections from deducting payments from his prisoner account to pay for the assessed fees and costs. We affirm. Although the trial court was mistaken about the statutory basis for defendant's motion, it reached the correct result in denying the motion.1 "This Court will affirm a lower court's ruling when the court reaches the right result, albeit for the wrong reason." People v Lyon, 227 Mich App 599, 612-613; 577 NW2d 124 (1998). Whether funds could be deducted from defendant's prisoner account to satisfy the assessed fines and costs involves an issue of law. We review questions of law de novo. See People v Koonce, 466 Mich 515, 518; 648 NW2d 153 (2002), and People v Westman, 262 Mich

Although defendant asserts that the trial court erred by deciding his motion without a hearing, at which any confusion over the statutory basis for the motion could have been clarified, he does not address the merits of this claim of error. An appellant may not merely announce a position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis of the claim. People v Schumacher, 276 Mich App 165, 178; 740 NW2d 534 (2007). In any event, because the trial court dismissed the motion without prejudice, thereby giving defendant the opportunity to refile his motion and identify the correct statutory basis for the motion, we find no error requiring a reversal or remand.

1

-1-


App 184, 186; 685 NW2d 423 (2004), overruled in part on other grounds in People v Monaco, 474 Mich 48 (2006). Initially, we note that defendant has misconstrued the trial court's October 13, 2005, order as indicative of an intent to rely on MCL 791.220h as authority for the collection of costs and fees from defendant's prisoner account. Viewed in context, the reference to MCL 791.220h was limited to the court-ordered restitution. That statute, which was in effect at the time defendant committed the armed robbery offense in December 2004, authorized the deduction of funds from defendant's prisoner account to pay the restitution obligation. The trial court's order assessing the fees and costs did not otherwise purport to identify a statutory basis for the withholding of funds from defendant's prisoner account to pay for the assessments. As defendant acknowledges, MCL 769.1l, as added by 2005 PA 325, effective January 1, 2006, authorizes the deduction of funds from a prisoner's account to be used for payment of court-ordered fees and costs. The statute provides: If a prisoner under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections has been ordered to pay any sum of money as described in section 1k and the department of corrections receives an order from the court on a form prescribed by the state court administrative office, the department of corrections shall deduct 50% of the funds received by the prisoner in a month over $50.00 and promptly forward a payment to the court as provided in the order when the amount exceeds $100.00, or the entire amount if the prisoner is paroled, is transferred to community programs, or is discharged on the maximum sentence. The department of corrections shall give an order of restitution under section 20h of the corrections code of 1953, 1953 PA 232, MCL 791.220h, or the crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.751 to 780.834, priority over an order received under this section.[2] A defendant's property interest in a prisoner account does not preclude prison officials from deducting funds from the account so long as the defendant is afforded due process. See Buck v Beard, 583 Pa 431, 436; 879 A2d 157 (2005), and Reynolds v Wagner, 128 F3d 166, 179 (CA 3, 1997). Here, defendant does not claim any due process violation. Instead, he argues that the application of MCL 769.1l to allow the deduction of funds from his prisoner account violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state and federal constitutions, because this statute did not become effective until January 1, 2006, after the underlying crime was committed. We disagree. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V SHAWN DEREK WEBSTER.pdf

Michigan Law