-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

October 22, 2015 

v No. 322206 

Clare Circuit Court 

JOHN EDWARD COOK, LC No. 13-004626-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and MURRAY and SHAPIRO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant pleaded guilty to delivering morphine, MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(ii). The trial 

court sentenced him as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to 12 months in jail and 

24 months of probation. The trial court ordered defendant to pay $300 in restitution, $136 in 

state costs, a crime victim’s assessment fee of $130, $500 in court costs, a $500 fine, and $500 in 

court-appointed attorney fees. This Court granted defendant’s delayed application for leave to 

appeal, People v Cook, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, issued July 17, 2013 (Docket 

No. 322206), limited to defendant’s challenges to certain costs and fines. For the reasons set 

forth below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. 

 First, defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a $500 fine at sentencing. 

We agree. “The fine was clearly not a part of the sentencing agreement, and the defendant was 

not offered the opportunity to withdraw his plea after the fine was imposed as part of the 

sentence.” People v Morse, 480 Mich 1074, 1074; 744 NW2d 169 (2008). Accordingly, like in 

Morse, we remand this matter “for the trial court to correct the judgment of sentence by deleting 

the . . . fine.” Id. 

 Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in imposing court costs because it was 

without authority to do so. We disagree. This case is indistinguishable from People v Konopka 

(On Remand), 309 Mich App 345, 350; ___ NW2d ___ (2015), where this Court held “that the 

trial court possessed the authority under MCL 769.1k, as amended by 2014 PA 352, to order [a] 

defendant to pay court costs.” We explained that, under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), a trial court has 

the independent authority to impose costs, and that statute “applies to all fines, costs, and 

assessments under MCL 769.1k before June 18, 2014, . . . and after . . . the effective date of the 

amendatory act.” Id. at 357, citing 2014 PA 352. Defendant was sentenced, and the costs were 
-2- 

imposed, on December 16, 2013. Accordingly, the trial court had authority, namely MCL 

769.1k(1)(b)(iii), to impose costs in this matter. 

 However, again like in Konopka, “without a factual basis for the costs imposed, we 

cannot determine whether the costs imposed were reasonably related to the actual costs incurred 

by the trial court, as required by MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii).” Konopka, 309 Mich App at 359-360. 

Consequently, we must remand this matter “to the trial court to establish whether the court costs 

imposed were ‘reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial court without separately 

calculating those costs involved in the particular case,’ MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), as amended by 

2014 PA 352, or to adjust that amount as may be appropriate.” Id. at 350-351. 

 Although defendant also claims that “[a]t the time the court imposed the sentence from 

the bench, it did not impose restitution; there was no mention at all of restitution,” at sentencing 

the trial court explicitly stated to defendant that: “You must pay restitution of $300.00.” 

Defendant’s argument flies in the face of the facts. 

 Defendant additionally argued in his brief that the 20-percent late fee provided for in 

MCL 600.4803 is, for a variety of reasons, unconstitutional. However, after oral argument 

before this Court, defendant informed the Court that all fees and fines have been paid and no late 

fee was charged. Accordingly, this argument is not ripe for review. See People v Jackson, 483 

Mich 271, 297-298; 769 NW2d 630 (2009). 

 Finally, defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the 

arguments discussed above. However, in light of our resolutions on the merits of those claims 

above, defendant’s ineffective assistance arguments do not warrant further relief. 

 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly 

/s/ Christopher M. Murray 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro