By Nick Smith
Gongwer News Service
An extension of the sunset to allow trial courts to impose court costs on criminal defendants was taken up for testimony by a Senate panel on Wednesday as some voiced frustration over the continued delays to come up with a state court funding solution.
The Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee took up HB 5452 for testimony only. It would extend the Dec. 31, 2026, sunset to Dec. 31, 2028.
Under current law, the court is required to impose statutory fines if a defendant enters a guilty plea or no contest, or if a court determines after a hearing or trial that a defendant is guilty. It is also permitted to impose costs associated with expenses incurred, costs of providing legal assistance to the defendant and other court operations-related costs.
The issue of court funding dates back to a 2014 Michigan Supreme Court ruling that courts could not levy certain costs on defendants.
The high court ruled that the courts do not have the independent authority to set court costs.
Bill sponsor Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, said there have been some efforts to address the issues of court funding in recent sessions but has not seen much progress. Despite this, a sunset has been repeatedly moved back to ensure operational funding level for trial courts.
“At this point, being in an election year, time is of the essence, and to make it so our funding units don’t have to suffer and be caught in the crossfire, I ask support to extend the sunset two years,” Lightner said.
Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield Township, said the costs for some defendants end up causing them significant financial difficulties.
Do you think in the House that there is support for some of the other bills that we’ve heard in this committee … around indigency and pilot programs?” Shink said.
She was referring to bills the committee had reported last month that would update the state’s trial court system method of determining indigency and prevent the imposition of some fines and fees that might end up creating unaffordable legal costs.
Lightner said that she was not 100% sure about the bills yet and that she has not gone over them yet with legal counsel in the House.
Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, called it frustrating to see another extension being needed.
“Here we are 12 years later talking about kicking the can down the road another two years,” Irwin said, adding he believes the Legislature can provide state funding for the courts.
Maci Main, a government affairs specialist with the Michigan Association of Counties, urged passage of the extension to ensure work on a long-term solution can continue.
“We hear this committee’s frustration with the lack of court funding reforms,” Main said. “Creating a replacement funding mechanism that works for not just us but all stakeholders is of utmost importance for us at MAC.”
Michigan Supreme Court Deputy General Counsel Trevor VanDyke said currently the group is opposed to the bill without there being some meaningful changes enacted.
Among the changes that the court would like to see include the indigent defense bills that passed the Senate (SB 1089, SB 1090 and SB 1091) and the enactment of uniform clerk costs.
Gongwer News Service
An extension of the sunset to allow trial courts to impose court costs on criminal defendants was taken up for testimony by a Senate panel on Wednesday as some voiced frustration over the continued delays to come up with a state court funding solution.
The Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee took up HB 5452 for testimony only. It would extend the Dec. 31, 2026, sunset to Dec. 31, 2028.
Under current law, the court is required to impose statutory fines if a defendant enters a guilty plea or no contest, or if a court determines after a hearing or trial that a defendant is guilty. It is also permitted to impose costs associated with expenses incurred, costs of providing legal assistance to the defendant and other court operations-related costs.
The issue of court funding dates back to a 2014 Michigan Supreme Court ruling that courts could not levy certain costs on defendants.
The high court ruled that the courts do not have the independent authority to set court costs.
Bill sponsor Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, said there have been some efforts to address the issues of court funding in recent sessions but has not seen much progress. Despite this, a sunset has been repeatedly moved back to ensure operational funding level for trial courts.
“At this point, being in an election year, time is of the essence, and to make it so our funding units don’t have to suffer and be caught in the crossfire, I ask support to extend the sunset two years,” Lightner said.
Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield Township, said the costs for some defendants end up causing them significant financial difficulties.
Do you think in the House that there is support for some of the other bills that we’ve heard in this committee … around indigency and pilot programs?” Shink said.
She was referring to bills the committee had reported last month that would update the state’s trial court system method of determining indigency and prevent the imposition of some fines and fees that might end up creating unaffordable legal costs.
Lightner said that she was not 100% sure about the bills yet and that she has not gone over them yet with legal counsel in the House.
Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, called it frustrating to see another extension being needed.
“Here we are 12 years later talking about kicking the can down the road another two years,” Irwin said, adding he believes the Legislature can provide state funding for the courts.
Maci Main, a government affairs specialist with the Michigan Association of Counties, urged passage of the extension to ensure work on a long-term solution can continue.
“We hear this committee’s frustration with the lack of court funding reforms,” Main said. “Creating a replacement funding mechanism that works for not just us but all stakeholders is of utmost importance for us at MAC.”
Michigan Supreme Court Deputy General Counsel Trevor VanDyke said currently the group is opposed to the bill without there being some meaningful changes enacted.
Among the changes that the court would like to see include the indigent defense bills that passed the Senate (SB 1089, SB 1090 and SB 1091) and the enactment of uniform clerk costs.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
