PEOPLE OF MI V CHARLES RAY WALKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 25, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 191173
Ionia Circuit Court
LC No. 95-010294-FH
CHARLES RAY WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: D.F. Walsh,* P.J., and R.P. Griffin** and W.P. Cynar,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to extortion, MCL 750.213; MSA 28.410, and larceny by
conversion, MCL 750.362; MSA 28.594. The plea was made in exchange for an agreement which
provided, in part, that restitution would be determined and imposed. Defendant was sentenced to
concurrent terms of 2-1/2 to 20 years’ imprisonment for the extortion conviction and 2-1/2 to 5 years’
imprisonment for the larceny conviction. He appeals as of right. We remand. T case has been
his
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(A).
Defendant argues that the trial court failed to consider various factors in imposing restitution and
failed to hold a hearing after he disputed the amount of restitution and his ability to pay. Pursuant to
MCL 780.767(1); MSA 28.1287(767)(1), the court was required to consider such factors as the
amount of loss sustained by the victim, defendant’s financial resources and earning ability and the
financial needs of defendant and his family. Since there is no indication that the court considered such
factors, the order of restitution is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the matter of
restitution. People v Grant, 210 Mich App 467, 473; 534 NW2d 149 (1995). On remand, the court
should hold a hearing it if determines, upon considering the proper factors for imposing restitution, that
*Former Court of Appeals judges, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
**Former Supreme Court justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
-1
such is needed because of a lack of evidence or because of a challenge to the evidence and request for
a hearing by defendant. Id., 473 n 3.
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Daniel F. Walsh
/s/ Robert P. Griffin
/s/ Walter P. Cynar
-2
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.
