Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Cunningham

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 28, 2013No. Docket No. 309277Published

1DissentShapiro, J.

The majority follows People v Sanders, 296 Mich App 710; 825 NW2d 87 (2012). I would instead follow People v Dilworth, 291 Mich App 399; 804 NW2d 788 (2011), a case that had previously decided this question, but which Sanders failed to follow.

In People v Dilworth, our Court considered whether “overhead” charges, i.e., the costs of operating a court system regardless of the filing of the single case at issue, could be assessed as court costs incurred in prosecuting the defendant. We held that such an assessment was improper:

When authorized, the costs of prosecution imposed “must bear some…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. NewtonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. People v. TeasdaleMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
  3. People v. WallaceMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  4. People v. SandersMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. People v. SandersMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API