18.4Orders for Reimbursement of Attorney Fees
“The court shall not order a juvenile or a juvenile’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian to pay for the costs of care, services, court-appointed attorney representation, or other costs or assessments related to the juvenile’s court proceeding.” MCL 712A.18(3).
”An order directed to a person responsible for the juvenile’s support under [MCL 769.1] is not binding on the person unless an opportunity for a hearing has been given and until a copy of the order is served on the person, personally or by first-class mail to the person’s last known address.” MCL 769.1(8).
Criminal defendants do not have a constitutional right to an ability-to-pay assessment before the court imposes a fee for a court-appointed attorney. People v Jackson, 483 Mich 271, 290 (2009), overruling People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App 240 (2004), to the extent it held otherwise. However, before a trial court attempts to enforce the imposition of a court-appointed attorney fee, it must provide notice to the defendant and give the defendant an opportunity to challenge the enforcement on the basis of indigency. Jackson, 483 Mich at 292. In conducting the ability-to-pay assessment, “[t]he operative question . . . will be whether a defendant is indigent and unable to pay at that time or whether forced payment would work a manifest hardship on the defendant at that time.” Id. at 293.
]MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) provides, in relevant part, “[i]f 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, at the time of sentencing, the court may impose the expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant.” People v Moore, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025) (cleaned up). Const 1963, art 8, § 9, provides in part that “[a]ll fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclusively applied to the support of such public libraries, and county law libraries as provided by law.” Moore, ___ Mich App at ___ (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). In this case, as part of a sentence for felonious assault and felony-firearm convictions, “the trial court ordered defendant to pay $400 in attorney fees, among other fees and costs.” Id. at ___. Defendant “argued that her sentence was invalid because MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) imposed an unlawful fine in violation of Const 1963, art 8, § 9, and because the trial court failed to make the required factual findings before imposing attorney fees.” Moore, ___ Mich App at ___. However, “[b]ecause the plain language of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) evidences the Legislature did not intend for it to be a fine and the attorney fees imposed directly relate to the actual cost of providing defendant with legal assistance, defendant fail[ed] to establish that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) constitutes a punitive fine subject to Const 1963, art 8, § 9.” Moore, ___ Mich App at ___. Thus, “MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv) is not facially unconstitutional.” Moore, ___ Mich App at ___.
Additionally, in Moore, defendant “argue[d] that the trial court failed to make required factual findings on the record before imposing attorney fees, including (1) the cost of providing legal assistance to defendant, (2) whether that cost was satisfied by the [Michigan Indigent Defense Counsel Act (MIDCA)], and (3) the effect of defendant’s indigency on her ability to pay fees.” Id. at ___. “A trial court ‘must establish the cost of providing legal services to the specific defendant at issue when assessing attorney fees under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv).’” Moore, ___ Mich App at ___, quoting People v Lewis, 503 Mich 162, 167 (2018). Here the trial court’s findings were sufficient “because the trial court acknowledged the amount of work the case required and estimated that the cost of providing legal services to defendant was substantially more than the predetermined fee it imposed.” Moore, ___ Mich App at ___. Further, “defendant did not claim indigency at sentencing and offers no evidence to establish that she was or should have been determined to be partially or totally indigent.” Id. at ___. Therefore, “the trial court was not required to address whether defendant’s attorney fees were satisfied by the MIDCA when it imposed them under MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv).” Moore, ___ Mich App at ___. Finally, “the trial court was not required to make findings regarding defendant’s ability to pay when it imposed the $400 attorney fees because there is no constitutionally required ability-to-pay analysis until the fee is actually enforced.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). In sum, “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to correct an invalid sentence because the factual findings were sufficient on the record, and the trial court was not required to consider whether defendant’s attorney fees were satisfied by the MIDCA or analyze defendant’s ability to pay when imposing attorney fees.” Id. at ___.