8.14Effect of Conviction Invalidation on Payment of Court-Ordered Financial Obligations

“When a criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur, . . . the State [is] obliged to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant upon, and as a consequence of, the conviction”; the retention of such conviction-related assessments following the reversal of a conviction, where the defendant will not be retried, “offends the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.” Nelson v Colorado, 581 US 128, 130, 134 (2017) (holding that a Colorado statute requiring a petitioner to “prove her innocence by clear and convincing evidence to obtain [a] refund of costs, fees, and restitution paid pursuant to an invalid conviction . . . does not comport with due process”).

In Michigan, there are no statutes or court rules providing a process for the return of costs, fees, and restitution in the event of the reversal or vacation of a criminal conviction. However, in People v Nance, 214 Mich App 257, 258-260 (1995), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that criminal fines and costs assessed as a result of a criminal conviction must be refunded to the defendant, without the bringing of a separate action, following the reversal of the conviction. The Nance Court noted that “[a] court may not impose fines or costs unless there is express provision for them in [an] underlying statute,” and held that there is no longer an express provision for fines and costs in an underlying statute if a defendant’s conviction is reversed. Id. at 259 (reversing the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion, following reversal of his conviction on appeal, for reimbursement of fines and costs assessed under “the substantive criminal statute, MCL 750.227; . . . the probation statute, MCL 771.3; . . . and the statute creating the Crime Victims Compensation Board, MCL 18.352”).

However, in People v Diermier, 209 Mich App 449, 450-451 (1995), the Court of Appeals held that the county was not obligated, under MCL 600.1475,¹ to refund restitution paid by the defendant for uncharged crimes where the restitution order was subsequently invalidated “on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that no person other than defendant could have” committed the uncharged crimes. Noting that “the county had simply acted as a conduit in channeling defendant’s restitution payments to the victim” and no longer had “the restitutional amount in its possession,” the Diermier Court concluded “that it would be unreasonable to require the county to reimburse defendant for monies it paid which the county simply channeled to the victim.” Diermier, 209 Mich App at 451.

The continued validity of Diermier, 209 Mich App 449, is uncertain in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Nelson, 581 US 128.

Note that the application of the following Michigan statutes may be impacted by Nelson:

•the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act, MCL 691.1751 et seq. (providing that an individual who was convicted and imprisoned for a crime he or she did not commit may bring a cause of action against the state for compensation and for reimbursement, under MCL 691.1755(2)(b), “of any amount awarded and collected by [the] state under the state correctional facility reimbursement act,” MCL 800.401 et seq., but not otherwise providing for a refund of fees, costs, and restitution);

•MCL 600.4835 (providing that the circuit court has discretion to “remit any penalty, or any part thereof,” but further providing that MCL 600.4835 “does not authorize [the] court to remit any fine imposed by any court upon a conviction for any criminal offense, nor any fine imposed by any court for an actual contempt of such court, or for disobedience of its orders or process”); and

•MCL 780.622(2) and MCL 712A.18e(11)(a) (providing that an applicant moving to set aside a criminal conviction or juvenile adjudication, respectively, “is not entitled to the remission of any fine, costs, or other money paid as a consequence of” the conviction or adjudication that is set aside).²

The preceding list is not meant to be exhaustive.