If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

May 27, 2021

V No. 344313

Jackson Circuit Court

LADARRIUS SHAQUOR WOODS, LC No. 16-005177-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appealed by right his jury trial convictions of assault with intent to commit 

murder (AWIM), MCL 750.83, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), MCL 750.227, and 

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. The 

trial court sentenced defendant to 8 to 20 years’ imprisonment for the AWIM conviction, 3 to 5

years’ imprisonment for the CCW conviction, and 2 years’ imprisonment for the felony-firearm 

conviction. The trial court also imposed court costs. In an earlier opinion, this panel affirmed 

defendant’s convictions and sentences, including the imposition of court costs. People v Woods, 

unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 19, 2019 (Docket No. 

344313). On remand from our Supreme Court, we again affirm.

In the prior appeal, defendant had argued in part that the trial court’s assessment of court 

costs under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) constituted an unconstitutional tax. We rejected the argument 

on the basis that this Court in People v Cameron, 319 Mich App 215, 218; 900 NW2d 658 (2017), 

which is binding precedent under MCR 7.215(J)(1), had rejected the very same argument. Woods, 

unpub op at 9-10. On leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, defendant switched gears 

and dropped his contention that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) constituted an unconstitutional tax. Instead, 

he argued to the Supreme Court that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) is “unconstitutional because it 

undermines criminal defendants’ right to appear before a neutral judge and prevents the judicial 

branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions of maintaining neutrality in 
-2-

criminal proceedings and in self-regulation.” Defendant also raised several other issues that are 

no longer relevant. In People v Woods, 506 Mich 938 (2020), our Supreme Court ruled:

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 

2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 

7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals addressing the trial court’s assessment of court 

costs pursuant to MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), and we REMAND this case to the Court 

of Appeals, which shall hold this case in abeyance pending its decision in People v 

Lewis (Court of Appeals Docket No. 350287). After Lewis is decided, the Court of 

Appeals shall reconsider this case in light of Lewis. In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.

This Court has now issued an opinion in People v Lewis, unpublished per curiam opinion 

of the Court of Appeals, issued May 13, 2021 (Docket No. 350287). Relying on and bound by 

this Court’s published opinion in People v Johnson, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (2021) (Docket 

No. 351308), the Lewis panel held that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) does not violate due process or the 

separation of powers doctrine, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the imposition of court costs 

incentivizes or pressures trial judges to unconstitutionally convict defendants in order to obtain 

costs and fund trial courts. Lewis, unpub op at 4-8.

We agree with the analysis and conclusion in Lewis, and we are likewise bound by Johnson. 

Accordingly, we hold that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) is constitutional; therefore, the imposition of 

court costs in this case was proper.

We affirm.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

/s/ Jane E. Markey

/s/ James Robert Redford