Court costs; MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii); Presumption statutes apply prospectively; Moot issues

Holding that the trial court ordered defendant-Wandolowski “to pay court costs without statutory authority to do so,” the court reversed the order for court costs and remanded for the trial court to refund the costs he paid. He pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to one year of probation. The trial court also ordered him “to pay $1,110 in court costs and a $500 fine.” He asserted it had no statutory authority to impose the court costs. When he pled “guilty, MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), as amended by 2020 PA 151, was in effect[.]” It granted courts the authority to impose court costs until 10/1/22. On 10/7/22, “MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), as amended by 2022 PA 199, went into effect, which changed the expiration date for the court’s authority from [10/1/22] to [5/1/24]. The trial ordered Wandolowski to pay” the court costs “two days after the provision authorizing these costs expired and four days before the amended law became effective.” Thus, the issue was whether the “Legislature intended for the amended statute to retroactively authorize trial courts to impose court costs during this gap.” The court noted that statutes “‘are presumed to apply prospectively unless the Legislature clearly manifests the intent for retroactive application.’” When it amended MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) with 2022 PA 199, the Legislature “did not state an intent to apply the law retroactively.” But the court noted the “Legislature applied the statute retroactively when it amended the statute in 2014.” This showed that it “knows how to state its intent to provide for retroactive application of a statute, and it chose not to do so.” The court added that if it applied the amended statute “retroactively, it would allow the [trial] court to impose court costs when it was not explicitly authorized by law, which would also impact Wandolowski’s legal obligations without supporting statutory authority.” As to his other issues, given that he “successfully completed his probation and paid the fine imposed for the crime to which he” pled guilty, the court found his appellate arguments about his probation conditions and fine were moot.