Cases | People v. Grant, 534 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to conspiring to utter and publish and of being an habitual offender, second offense. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay $175,000 in restitution. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court failed to determine the proper amount of restitution in light of his financial resources and earning ability and the financial needs of both himself and his family. The appellate court vacated and remanded for reconsideration by the trial court. The trial court was not required to conduct a hearing for the purpose of fulfilling the mandates of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 780.767 because the defendant never explicitly asserted that he was unable to pay, and did not offer evidence in support of any other figure or request a hearing regarding the issue. However, the defendant correctly asserted that the trial court’s determination of restitution fell short of the statutory requirements. At the very least, the court was required to consider the factors enumerated in § 780.767. The trial court apparently gave no consideration to the defendant’s ability to pay, the financial needs of the defendant and his family, or any other nonenumerated but relevant factors, such as the defendant’s claimed limited role in the offense. Although the trial court read and was entitled to rely on the presentence investigation report, it provided only conclusory input regarding these factors.
rev’d, People v. Grant, 455 Mich. 221, 565 N.W.2d 389 (Mich. 1997)