PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIE MOONEY JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 15, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 178516
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 94-000744-FH
WILLIE MOONEY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Young, P.J., and Doctoroff and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, MCL 750.81a; MSA 28.276(1), and was
sentenced to two years’ probation and ordered to pay restitution of $6,902.73 at the rate of $150 per
month. He appeals as of right. We affirm his conviction but remand to the trial court for a
redetermination of whether he should be assessed restitution and, if so, in what amount.
At the time of the crime, the applicable restitution statutes, MCL 769.1a(8); MSA 28.1073(8)
and MCL 780.766(10); MSA 28.1287(766)(10), provided that restitution was not to be ordered with
respect to a loss for which the victim was compensated by insurance, except that "in the interest of
justice" the court was permitted to assess restitution in favor of, inter alia, an insurer to the extent that it
had compensated the victim. In People v Gourd, 200 Mich App 493, 496; 504 NW2d 699 (1994),
this Court, noting the statutes’ "general admonishment that restitution not be ordered with respect to a
loss for which the victim . . . received or is to receive compensation," reversed an order of restitution to
an insurer where, as here, the record contained no special facts "that lead us to conclude justice would
best be served by ordering restitution to [the insurer]." Pursuant to Gourd, the trial court in the case at
bar erred by ordering restitution that included an undetermined amount of insurance benefits paid or
payable to the victim.
Although the restitution statutes were amended subsequent to the date of the instant offense and
deleted the "in the interest of justice" language, upon remand defendant is entitled to application of the
statutes in their pre-amendment form in order to obviate violation of the constitutional prohibitions
-1
against ex post facto laws. See US Const, art I, § 10, cl 1; Const 1963, art 1, § 10. Consequently, on
remand the trial court shall order restitution as it determines appropriate in accordance with the pre
amendment version of the statutes.
We affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence of probation, but vacate the order of restitution
and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
