People v. Somers
Annotate this CaseDefendant, charged with five counts of burglary, pled guilty in 2009 and received a sentence of 2 years’ probation and 180 days in jail. He was ordered to pay a public defender fee of $200 after the judge questioned him about his employment. In 2010, he was sentenced to six years in prison after having been found to have violated his probation. In his appeal, defendant contended that the hearing on his ability to pay the defender fee had been inadequate, that it was too late for a remand because the statute calls for a hearing within 90 days of judgment, and that no hearing could be held at all and that the fee should be vacated. The appellate court remanded for a new hearing. The supreme court affirmed. The perfunctory hearing was inadequate and the defendant was entitled to a new hearing of the quality set forth by statute. There is no reason why the trial court’s error should be uncorrectable on appeal.
Court Description:
In this Livingston County case, the defendant, charged with five counts of burglary, pled guilty in 2009 and received a sentence of 2 years’ probation and 180 days in jail. He was ordered to pay a public defender fee of $200 after the judge questioned him about his employment. This fee would reimburse the county for the cost of appointed counsel. Later, in 2010, he was sentenced to six years in prison after having been found to have violated his probation. In his appeal, Somers contended that the hearing on his ability to pay the public defender fee had been inadequate, but he later also argued that it was now too late for a remand for a proper hearing because the applicable statute calls for a hearing within 90 days of judgment. He thus argued that no hearing could be held at all and that the fee should be vacated. The appellate court remanded for a new hearing anyway and this appeal followed.
In this decision, the supreme court held that the perfunctory hearing that was held had indeed been inadequate and that the defendant was entitled to a new hearing of the quality set forth by statute. However, the supreme court refused to hold, as requested by the defendant, that it was now too late to hold any hearing at all in order to impose a public defender fee. There is no reason why the trial court’s error should be uncorrectable on appeal, and the issue of whether the statute’s 90-day time limit is mandatory or directory is not presented by the facts of this case. The appellate court’s remand was affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.