Court Opinion

ID: 9959560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 06:06:57.119729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:08.469819
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                      UNPUBLISHED
                                                                      April 11, 2024
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                     No. 360858
                                                                      Ingham Circuit Court
ZACHAREY LEIGH DIEDERICHS,                                            LC No. 20-000868-FC

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GADOLA, C.J., and BORRELLO and PATEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        After pleading guilty, defendant was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder,
MCL 750.317, and felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f. Defendant was sentenced to
concurrent terms of 50 to 75 years’ imprisonment for the second-degree murder convictions and 3
to 5 years’ imprisonment for the felon-in-possession conviction. Defendant appeals by leave
granted, challenging the trial court’s imposition of $2,500 in court costs. We reject defendant’s
constitutional challenges to the assessment of court costs, but remand for articulation of the factual
basis for the costs imposed.

        Defendant contends that the trial court erred by assessing $2,500 in court costs pursuant to
MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), without providing a factual basis for the costs imposed. Defendant failed
to raise this challenge before the trial court, and we therefore review this unpreserved challenge
for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights. See People v Konopka (On Remand), 309
Mich App 345, 356; 869 NW2d 651 (2015).

       At the time defendant was sentenced, MCL 769.1k(1) provided, in relevant part:

              (1) If a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or if the court
       determines after a hearing or trial that the defendant is guilty, both of the following
       apply at the time of the sentencing or at the time entry of judgment of guilt is
       deferred by statute or sentencing is delayed by statute:

                                               * * *

                                                 -1-
               (b) The court may impose any or all of the following:

                                                * * *

               (iii) Until October 1, 2022, any cost reasonably related to the actual costs
       incurred by the trial court without separately calculating those costs involved in the
       particular case, including, but not limited to, the following:

               (A) Salaries and benefits for relevant court personnel.

               (B) Goods and services necessary for the operation of the court.

              (C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court
       buildings and facilities.

        MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) requires “a relationship between the costs imposed and the services
they support by authorizing only costs ‘reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial
court.’ ” People v Cameron, 319 Mich App 215, 225; 900 NW2d 658 (2017). The trial court must
establish a factual basis for the costs. Konopka, 309 Mich App at 359-360. Here, defendant argues,
and the prosecution agrees, that the trial court erred by failing to establish a factual basis for the
amount of court costs imposed. We agree. The trial court in this case imposed court costs in the
amount of $2,500 without explanation, thereby failing to demonstrate that the court costs were
reasonably related to the trial court’s actual costs. Remand is therefore necessary to permit the
trial court to articulate the factual basis for the costs imposed and, if warranted, to alter the amount
of costs.

         Defendant also contends that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) infringed upon his due-process rights
to appear before and be sentenced by a neutral arbiter because the statute provides incentive for
trial judges to convict defendants to fund the courts in which they preside. Defendant also argues
that the statute violates the separation of powers by preventing the judicial branch from
accomplishing its constitutionally assigned function of affording criminal defendants due process
of law. In People v Johnson, 336 Mich App 688; 971 NW2d 692 (2021), this Court considered
the same facial challenge to the constitutionality of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), and rejected the same
challenges regarding due process, separation of powers, and interference with the impartiality of
the judiciary raised by defendant in this case. Although our Supreme Court granted leave to appeal
this Court’s decision in Johnson, see People v Johnson, 509 Mich 1094 (2022), the Supreme Court
thereafter vacated its order and denied leave to appeal on the basis that it was “no longer persuaded
that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.” People v Johnson, 511 Mich 1047
(2023). As a result, this Court’s decision in Johnson is controlling on this issue, see MCR
7.215(C)(2) and (J)(1), and defendant’s constitutional challenge to MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii)
therefore is without merit.

                                                  -2-
        We remand for articulation of the factual basis for the court costs imposed, and if
warranted, reassessment of the amount of costs imposed. We affirm in all other respects. We do
not retain jurisdiction.

                                                         /s/ Michael F. Gadola
                                                         /s/ Stephen L. Borrello
                                                         /s/ Sima G. Patel

                                             -3-