This post examines a recent decision from the Court of Appeals of Michigan: People v. Wilson,
2017 WL 3197681 (2017) (per curiam).
The court begins the opinion by explaining that
Defendant appeals, by delayed leave
granted, certain probation conditions imposed for her guilty plea conviction of
aggravated indecent exposure, [Michigan Compiled Laws] 750.335a(2)(b). The
trial court sentenced defendant to a five year term of probation, with the
first nine months to be served in jail. The trial court imposed additional
probation conditions upon defendant and required the payment of specific court
costs and fees. We vacate the condition of the defendant's probation
restricting her from owning, possessing, or using `any computer or any device
capable of connecting to the [i]nternet[,] either directly or indirectly[,]
through a third party provider or reside in any residence in which these are
present.’ We also remand for a hearing on whether the internet restrictions are
warranted and, if so, for the court to tailor those internet restrictions to
conform to the purpose behind defendant's individualized order of probation. We
affirm in all other respects.
Defendant, 24 years old when she
entered her guilty plea,
admitted that at some point between 2005 through 2010 (when she was between 14
and 19 years old) she exposed and fondled her breast in front of a young
person. The trial court sentenced defendant to a five year probation which
included as a condition of probation that defendant not `own, possess, or use
any computer or any device capable of connecting to the [i]nternet[,] either
directly or indirectly[,] through a third party provider or reside in any residence
in which these are present’ unless she first obtains written permission from
the field agent. Additionally, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $68 for
`State Cost,’ $130 as a crime victim assessment fee, $300 in court costs, $600
as a supervision fee, and $400 as a county probation oversight fee.
People v. Wilson,
supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that
[t]hereafter, defendant moved the trial
court to correct an `invalid sentence.’ Defendant argued that the complete ban
on computer and internet use was an unlawful, overbroad probation condition and
was not rationally related to defendant's rehabilitation or the facts of the
case. Defendant further sought to have the order for a $400 `county probation
oversight fee’ vacated, contending that the trial court lacked the necessary
statutory authorization to impose that assessment. The trial court denied
defendant's motion. The trial court acknowledged that the computer ban seemed
overbearing and was `excessive maybe on some levels,’ but opined that because
the county apparently imposed the computer ban as a restriction on all
individuals under their supervision for sex offenses, it was not going to `step
on the toes of the legislation.’ The trial court further found that the $400
fee is supported through the county and that there was verification as to how
the funds were to be used by the county. A panel of this Court denied
defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal the above decision. People
v. Wilson, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 4,
2016 (Docket No. 330799). However, our Supreme Court, in lieu of granting
defendant's application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' denial,
remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave
granted. People v. Wilson, 500 Mich. 928; 889 N.W.2d 249 (2017).
People v. Wilson,
supra.
The Court of Appeals then took up the issue of the probation
conditions, explaining that
[w]e review the trial court's decision
to set terms of probation for an abuse of discretion. People v. Zujko,
282 Mich. App. 520, 521; 765 N.W.2d 897 (2008). A trial court abuses its
discretion only when its decision falls outside the principled range of
outcomes. People v. Malinowski, 301 Mich. App. 182, 185; 835 N.W.2d
468 (2013).
A sentencing judge is accorded wide
discretion in setting conditions of probation. People v. Miller,
182 Mich. App. 711, 713; 452 N.W.2d 890 (1990). MCL 771.3(3) permits
a court to `impose other lawful conditions of probation as the circumstances of
the case require or warrant or as in its judgment are proper.’ Thus, only if
the conditions are unlawful will the judge's determination be disturbed. Miller,
182 Mich. App. at 713. `While there is no ultimate catalog of legal or illegal
terms, and the Legislature did not define what constitutes a ‘lawful’ term of
probation, there must be a rational relationship between the restriction and
rehabilitation.’ Id. (internal citations omitted).
People v. Wilson,
supra.
The court goes on to explain that the
discretion given to the trial court to
impose `other lawful conditions of probation’ is `obviously necessary to allow
trial judges to tailor sentences to the differing circumstances of those convicted of crimes and to meet
the requirement of individualized sentencing.’ People v. Peters,
191 Mich. App. 159, 165; 477 N.W.2d 479 (1991); Michigan Compiled Laws
771.3(3). According to this Court:
`To accomplish the purpose of
[probation], an exceptional degree of flexibility in administration is
essential. It is necessary to individualize each case, to give that careful,
humane[,] and comprehensive consideration to the particular situation of each
offender which would be possible only in the exercise of broad discretion. [Peters,
191 Mich. App. at 165, quoting Burns v. United States, 287 U.S.216, 220; 53 S.Ct. 154; 77 L.Ed. 266 (1932)].
`[E]ach judge must decide for himself
whether there is a rational relationship between the restriction and
rehabilitation.’ People v. Johnson, 92 Mich. App. 766, 768; 285
N.W.2d 453 (1979).’
People v. Wilson,
supra.
The Court of Appeals went on to explain that the
challenged probation term restricted
defendant from owning, possessing, or using `any computer or any device capable
of connecting to the[i]nternet [,] either directly or indirectly[,] through a
third party provider or reside in any residence in which these are present’
unless she first obtains written permission from the field agent. According to
defendant's probation officer, Bruce Garchow, the condition was imposed on all
individuals that are under supervision for sex offenses. Any universal
probation condition defeats the aim of rehabilitation where it is not tailored
to each individual's offense and rehabilitation. The victim in this matter
reported various incidents of sexual assault by defendant, and included a
statement that defendant showed him pornographic movies. While pornography can
be accessed on the internet, the restriction failed to account for other legitimate,
lawful and necessary use of a computer and the internet. Placing a total ban on
one's ability to use a computer and the internet for five years, or to reside
in any residence where a computer or the internet is present, could pose a
significant barrier to a defendant's transition back into society. Moreover,
such a broad restriction could prove unworkable in today's high-tech society
where some jobs require online applications and even the most basic cell phones
are “capable of connecting to the internet.”
In her brief on appeal, as she did
before the trial court, defendant outlines several legitimate reasons to use
the internet. Specifically, defendant desires to use the internet to
research questions and issues related to the parenting of her recently born
twins, job hunting, housing, and daycare, and to communicate with her fiancé
and to allow her children to do so while he is on military duty. The trial
court did not state any reason for the blanket restriction and the prosecution
did not explain how the restriction might be related to defendant's
rehabilitation. In fact, the trial court was troubled by the overbearing and
the excessive nature of the condition, but declined to modify the restriction.
A broad blanket restriction on the use of the internet and computers, without
regard to a defendant's need for the resources and the state's interest in
rehabilitation of the defendant is questionable, particularly when there was
nothing to show that the restriction was lawfully and logically related to the nt's defendant's rehabilitation. Miller, 182 Mich. App. at 713; Peters,
191 Mich. App. at 164–165.
People v. Wilson,
supra.
The court then goes on to point out that
[f]ederal appellate courts have
addressed similar issues regarding computer and/or internet
restrictions. For instance, in United States v. Sofsky, 287
F3d 122, 124 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit 2002), the defendant
pleaded guilty to
receiving child pornography. A condition of his probation prohibited him from
using a computer or the internet without the approval of his probation
officer. Id. Quoting United States v. Peterson,
248 F3d 79, 83 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit, 2001), the court
noted that `”‘computers and Internet access have become virtually indispensable
in the modern world of communications and information gathering,”’ and that ‘”although
a defendant might use the telephone to commit fraud, this would not justify a
condition of probation that includes an absolute bar on the use of telephones."' ofsky, 287 F3d at 126. The court vacated the
condition and remanded for `entry of a more restricted condition.’ Id. at
127.
Similarly in United States v.
Miller, 594 F3d 172 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
2010), the third circuit vacated the trial court's probation condition imposing
a lifetime limitation on internet use where the defendant was convicted of child pornography,
holding that it was a greater restraint of liberty than is reasonably necessary
and that `conditions restricting computer and internet usage for child
pornography offenders . . . as they bear on tools that are essential in modern
life for legitimate purposes of communication, commerce, and
information-gathering, must be narrowly tailored according to the context of
the particular offense.’
People v. Wilson,
supra.
The Court of Appeals then began the process of articulating
its ruling – its decision – in this case:
. . . [W]hile there was a mention at
the motion hearing that the police report indicated that the pornography shared
with the victim was accessed on the internet, this could not be gleaned from
the PSIR or the victim's statement, which indicated only that he had been shown
pornography, but did not indicate whether it was on the computer as opposed to
a television. In any event, while these facts might provide some basis for a
restriction, the trial court did not individualize or tailor the restriction in
this case. Rather, the trial court imposed the condition because it was universal,
while noting that it was `overbearing’ and `excessive on some levels.’ Given
the broadness of the probation condition in this case and the failure to tailor
it to defendant's rehabilitation, we vacate the condition and remand to the
trial court for a hearing on whether the internet restrictions are warranted
and, if so, for the trial court to tailor those internet restrictions to
conform to the purpose behind defendant's individualized order of probation.
With respect to defendant's challenge
to the $400 `county oversight fee,’ as unauthorized by statute, we note that
issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law that we review de novo. Koontz v. Ameritech
Services, Inc., 466 Mich. 304, 309; 645 N.W.2d 34 (2002). `The right of the
court to impose costs in a criminal case is statutory.’ People v.
Cunningham, 496 Mich. 145,149; 852 N.W.2d 118 (2014), quoting People
v. Wallace, 245 Mich. 310, 313; 222 NW 698 (1929). `Thus, courts may impose
costs in criminal cases only where such costs are authorized by statute.’ Id. `[W]hen
a criminal defendant is placed on probation, courts may require the probationer
to pay expenses specifically incurred in prosecuting the defendant or providing
legal assistance to the defendant and the supervision of the probationer.’ Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted); Michigan Compiled Laws 771.3(5).
People v. Wilson,
supra.
The Court of Appeals goes on to explain that
Michigan Compiled Laws
771.3(2)(c) provides that as a condition of probation, the court may
require the probationer to pay costs pursuant to subsection (5). Subsection (5)
provides: `If the court requires the probationer to pay costs under subsection
(2), the costs shall be limited to expenses specifically incurred in
prosecuting the defendant or providing legal assistance to the defendant and
the supervision of the probationer.’
During the motion hearing, plaintiff
explained that county probation oversight fees are used by the county to cover
probation expenses like heat, light, and other utilities. Specifically,
plaintiff stated that the statutory purpose for the fee was for the supervision
of probationers. Additionally, probation officer Garchow explained that the
probation oversight fee was a “standard” fee associated with all probationers,
which “goes to cover the office supplies used in the supervision of
probationers.” The oversight fee is thus authorized under Michigan Compiled
Laws 771.3(2)(c) and (5) as an expense incurred in the supervision of a
probationer and the trial court did not err in imposing the fee.
People v. Wilson,
supra.
And the court concluded the opinion with these comments:
We vacate the condition of the
defendant's probation restricting her from owning, possessing, or using `any
computer or any device capable of connecting to the [i]nternet[,] either directly
or indirectly[,] through a third party provider or reside in any residence in
which these are present’ and remand to the trial court for a hearing on whether
the internet restrictions are warranted and, if so, for the court to tailor
those internet restrictions to conform to the purpose behind defendant's
individualized order of probation. We affirm in all other respects. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
People v. Wilson,
supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment