Background
Dandre Marquise Bell pleaded guilty to delivery or manufacture of methamphetamine. On July 12, 2024, the Ingham Circuit Court sentenced him to 69 months to 20 years in prison, concurrent with a sentence he was already serving for an unrelated aggravated-stalking probation violation. The court awarded 57 days of jail credit and imposed $1,608 in fines, costs, and fees, including $500 in court costs and $750 in attorney fees. The judgment also provided for a 20% late penalty on amounts not paid within 56 days.
Bell sought credit for 646 days, arguing that he should receive credit for the period after his arrest during which he was serving the unrelated sentence. He also challenged the monetary assessments and his ability to pay them. The trial court denied his post-sentencing motion after having entered an order directing the Department of Corrections to collect prisoner funds under the statutory remittance procedure.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of 57 days of jail credit. Under MCL 769.11b, credit is available only for time served because the defendant was denied or unable to furnish bond for the offense of conviction. Once Bell began serving the unrelated probation-violation sentence on October 4, 2022, that sentence—not his bond status in the methamphetamine case—became the reason for his incarceration. Revoking his bond would not have produced additional credit, so Bell also could not establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to seek revocation.
The court vacated the court-cost and attorney-fee assessments because the trial court did not articulate a factual basis for either amount. Although Bell’s indigency did not bar the initial imposition of court costs or attorney fees, the remittance order and Bell’s subsequent challenge to his ability to pay required the trial court to decide whether he rebutted the statutory presumption of nonindigency as to attorney-fee payments. The court remanded for factual findings supporting both assessments and an ability-to-pay determination concerning the attorney fees and any related late penalty.
Key Takeaways
- Time spent serving an unrelated sentence is not jail-credit time under MCL 769.11b merely because the defendant also cannot obtain release on bond in the pending case.
- A trial court imposing court costs and attorney fees must provide a factual basis supporting the amounts assessed.
- When a prisoner subject to a remittance order contests the ability to pay attorney fees, the court must consider the claimed hardship and articulate its determination.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Michigan’s jail-credit statute turns on the actual reason for confinement, not simply whether a defendant remained unable to secure release in the case being sentenced. A sentence in an unrelated matter stops the jail-credit clock for the pending offense.
It also reinforces that monetary assessments require record support and that a prisoner’s properly raised ability-to-pay challenge to enforced attorney-fee obligations cannot be rejected without an articulated determination. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded without retaining jurisdiction.