Opinion
Docket No. 147367. COA No. 315625.
2013-11-27
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Anthony VAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. MARKMAN, J. (concurring).
As previously set forth in my separate statements in People v. Touchstone, 483 Mich. 947, 948–949, 767 N.W.2d 422 (2009), and People v. Parks, 493 Mich. 944, 944–945 (2013), MCL 771.3c(1) provides that in “determining the amount of the [supervision] fee, the court shall consider the probationer's projected income and financial resources.” The table contained in that provision proceeds to instruct that if probationer's projected monthly income is less than $250, the amount of such fee should be zero dollars. Per defendant's presentencing report, there was evidence that his projected monthly income was $100 a month and that his total financial resources were $200 a month. If that information was accurate, no fee should have been imposed upon defendant. Yet, absent any explanation, the trial court assessed a $10 monthly fee. Because defendant did not object at sentencing, the issue is unpreserved. For that reason alone, I concur in the Court's order. McCORMACK, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J.