-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FOR PUBLICATION 

April 21, 2015 

v No. 318300 

Houghton Circuit Court 

JASON THOMAS JUNTIKKA, LC No. 2013-002677-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and FORT HOOD and GADOLA, JJ. 

O’CONNELL, P.J., (dissenting). 

 I respectfully dissent. 

 Defendant is a probation violator. On January 23, 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to one 

count of failing to register as a sex offender, MCL 28.729. The trial court sentenced defendant to 

serve a five-year probationary term and 12 months in the county jail. The court ordered 

defendant to pay a $100 cost for probation supervision to cover such things as cell phone and 

gloves for probation agents: the equivalent of $1.67 a month.1 The trial court labelled this cost a 

“probation enhancement fee” and indicated that MCL 771.3 authorized it to impose this cost. 

 It is necessary to discuss what this case is not about before addressing what this case is 

about. First and foremost, this case is not similar to People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145; 852 

NW2d 118 (2014). In Cunningham, our Supreme Court addressed whether former MCL 

769.1k(1)(b)(ii) provided trial courts with the independent authority to impose costs upon a 

criminal defendant. MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) gave trial courts authority to impose “any cost in 

addition to the minimum state cost.” Our Supreme Court held that former MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) 

 

1

 There are several plausible reasons why this specific probation violator may require additional 

supervision. In this case, the probation department must spend additional time and resources 

monitoring defendant for any potential violations of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), 

MCL 28.721 et seq. In my opinion, $1.67 a month to monitor a probationer for SORA violations 

is not unreasonable. For instance, $1.67 a month may simply cover phone calls to ascertain 

defendant’s compliance with SORA’s check-in requirements under MCL 28.725. 
-2- 

did not allow a trial court to assess any cost, but rather “provides courts with the authority to 

impose only those costs that the Legislature has separately authorized by statute.” Id. at 154. 

 In the present case, a different statute with different language is at issue. Our statute does 

not concern “any cost” but rather allows “costs” to be imposed on “the probationer.” MCL 

771.3(2)(c) provides that a trial court may require the probationer to pay costs as a condition of 

probation pursuant to MCL 771.3(5). In turn, MCL 771.3(5) provides that “the costs shall be 

limited to expenses specifically incurred in . . . supervision of the probationer.” Accordingly, 

costs in this case are specifically authorized by statute. See Cunningham, 496 Mich at 149. 

 We also cannot read statutory sections in isolation, People v Conley, 270 Mich App 301, 

316-317; 715 NW2d 377 (2006) and should avoid constructions that render portions of a statute 

surplusage, People v Ward, 211 Mich App 489, 492; 536 NW2d 270 (1995). The probationspecific supervision fee provided in MCL 771.3(1)(d) cross-references MCL 771.3c, which 

provides a fee based on the number of months of probation that the trial court orders. I cannot 

conclude that the Legislature meant to restrict costs or fees to this specific dollar amount when it 

independently authorized additional cost and fees under MCL 771.3(2)(c) and (d). If the trial 

court may only order the specific assessment provided in MCL 771.3(1)(d), it renders these 

portions of the statute surplusage. 

 The trial court imposed specifically authorized costs in this case.2

 As the trial court 

noted, the probation enhancement fee that it assessed Juntikka provided for equipment that 

allows probation agents to perform their jobs. These are costs incurred in supervising the 

probationer, who is subject to additional monitoring under SORA. 

 The $100 cost imposed by the trial court was a reasonable and specific fee authorized by 

MCL 771.3, and therefore it was not within the umbrella of disallowed costs set forth in the 

Cunningham opinion. Since MCL 771.3 specifically allows a trial court to assess costs for the 

supervision of probationers, I would affirm the learned trial court’s well-reasoned opinion. 

 I would affirm. 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell 

 

2

 The majority places great weight on the fact that the term “probation enhancement fee” does 

not appear in MCL 771.3. In my opinion, this places form over substance and leads the majority 

astray. As this Court has stated, “we do not reverse where the trial court reaches the right result 

for a wrong reason.” People v Ramsdell, 230 Mich App 386, 406; 585 NW2d 1 (1998). I do not 

think that any flat fee becomes an assessment. I prefer to read the specific statute to determine 

whether it authorizes a specific cost.