PEOPLE OF MI V TERRY LYNN GATEHOUSE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 19, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 220083
Isabella Circuit Court
LC No. 98-008672-FH
TERRY LYNN GATEHOUSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Fitzgerald and D.B. Leiber*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his sentence for probation violation following his
plea-based conviction of attempted malicious destruction of property over $100, MCL 750.377a;
MSA 28.609(1) (the pre-1999 version); MSA 750.92; MSA 28.287. We vacate those portions of
the judgment requiring defendant to pay costs and a fine.
Following his plea, defendant was sentenced to two years’ probation, and ordered to pay
costs, restitution, and a fine. Subsequently, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and
sentenced him to serve one year in the county jail, with credit for sixty days. The court ordered
that defendant remain liable for the costs, restitution, and fine.
While defendant does not challenge his continuing liability for restitution, he argues that
the trial court erred by ordering that he remain liable for the costs and fine imposed as a condition
of probation. We agree that the trial court erred, and vacate those portions of the judgment of
sentence requiring payment of costs and a fine. A trial court that revokes probation may proceed
to sentence the defendant as if the term of probation had never been imposed. However, the
court may not order payment of costs unless the underlying statute expressly provides for them.
People v Krieger, 202 Mich App 245, 247; 507 NW2d 749 (1993). Defendant was convicted of
attempted malicious destruction of property over $100, a high court misdemeanor. MCL
750.92(3); MSA 28.287(3) provides that such an offense is punishable by a term of incarceration
or by a fine not to exceed $1,000. The statute does not provide for the imposition of costs;
therefore, when the trial court sentenced defendant after revoking probation it lacked the
authority to order that he remain liable for costs. Id. at 248. Furthermore, because MCL
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
750.92(3); MSA 28.287(3) provides for either a term of incarceration or a fine, the trial court was
not authorized to impose both penalties when it sentenced defendant. That portion of the
judgment ordering payment of a fine must be vacated.
We vacate those portions of the judgment of sentence ordering payment of costs and a
fine. The remaining portions of the judgment are affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Dennis B. Leiber
-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.
