PEOPLE OF MI V SHIRLEY HOWARD-COATES

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 6, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 213253 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 97-502461 S. HOWARD HOMES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 213257 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 97-502458 SHIRLEY HOWARD-COATES, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Zahra, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendants appeal as of right their plea-based convictions for obtaining money under false pretenses, over $100, MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415. We reverse in part. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). On appeal, defendants argue that the trial court erred in ordering restitution paid to the State of Michigan, where the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, MCL 780.766; MSA 28.1287(766), only authorized restitution to individuals at the time the crimes were committed. At the time of defendants’ crimes, the Crime Victim’s Rights Act defined a crime victim in such a way as to exclude government agencies from being considered victims who could seek restitution under the statute. People v Chupp, 200 Mich App 45, 49; 503 NW2d 698 (1993). The statute was -1­ subsequently amended to include government agencies within the definition of victims; however, retrospective application of a criminal law that disadvantages the defendant violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of Const 1963, art 1, § 10. People v Slocum, 213 Mich App 239, 243; 539 NW2d 572 (1995). Here, the amended statute is retrospective where it applies to acts committed prior to the amendment. Id. Increasing the amount of restitution for which a defendant would be responsible increases his punishment, thus retroactive application of the statute would be in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id., 244. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s order requiring defendants to pay restitution. Defendants’ convictions and sentences are otherwise affirmed. We do not retain jurisdiction. /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ Brian K. Zahra -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.