People of Michigan v. David Gerard Wandolowski ( 2024 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
October 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Appellee, 1:51 PM
v No. 367342
Oscoda Circuit Court
DAVID GERARD WANDOLOWSKI, LC No. 20-001683-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CAMERON, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and GARRETT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, David Gerard Wandolowski, appeals by leave granted the trial court’s denial
of his motion to correct an invalid sentence. Wandolowski challenges two terms of his probation,
as well as the trial court’s order that he pay a fine and court costs. Wandolowski successfully
completed his probation and paid the fine imposed for the crime to which he pleaded guilty. For
those reasons, we hold that Wandolowski’s arguments about his probation conditions and the fine
are moot. But because the trial court ordered Wandolowski to pay court costs without statutory
authority to do so, we reverse the court’s order for court costs and remand for the trial court to
refund the costs Wandolowski paid.
I. BACKGROUND
Wandolowski pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault, MCL 750.81, and the trial court
sentenced him to one year of probation in accordance with a delayed sentencing agreement. Under
the agreement, if Wandolowski successfully completed a one-year term of probation, the
prosecutor agreed to dismiss his conviction. The trial court imposed the following relevant
conditions of probation:
You must not have verbal, written, electronic, or physical contact, without
permission of the field agent, with anyone that you know to have a felony record.
You must not have verbal, written, electronic, or physical contact with anyone you
-1-
know to be engaged in any behavior that constitutes a violation of any criminal law
of any unit of government.
* * *
You must allow the field agent into your residence at any time for probation
supervision.
The trial court also ordered Wandolowski to pay $1,110 in court costs and a $500 fine.
Wandolowski moved to correct his sentence, arguing that the referenced probation conditions were
invalid, that the court erred when it ordered him to pay the fine without deciding its proportionality,
and that the court imposed court costs without statutory authority to do so. The court denied
Wandolowski’s motion. Wandolowski applied for leave to challenge this decision on August 15,
2023. On October 4, 2023, after Wandolowski successfully completed the delayed sentence
agreement, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice, and discharged Wandolowski from
probation. According to the register of actions, Wandolowski paid the ordered fine and costs in
full; however, it is unclear from the record when he paid those balances. This Court granted
Wandolowski’s application for leave to appeal in People v Wandolowski, unpublished order of the
Court of Appeals, issued October 5, 2023 (Docket No. 367342).
II. MOOTNESS
Wandolowski challenges his probation conditions and the $500 fine. Because these issues
are moot, we decline to reach the merits of his claims.
A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Whether a controversy “is moot is a threshold issue that a court addresses before it reaches
the substantive issues of the case itself.” People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29, 35; 782 NW2d 187(2010), amended on another issue in 486 Mich 1041 (2010). “An issue is moot when a subsequent
event makes it impossible for this Court to grant relief.” Gleason v Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308,
314; 917 NW2d 685(2018). In other words, an issue is moot if “any judgment on the matter would
lack practical legal effect,” People v Smith, 502 Mich 624, 631; 918 NW2d 718 (2018), or it is
“impossible for the reviewing court to fashion a remedy to the controversy,” People v Thue, 336
Mich App 35, 39; 969 NW2d 346, 349 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court
generally dismisses a moot question without reaching the merits to avoid presiding over a
“purposeless proceeding.” Gleason, 323 Mich App at 315 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
But this Court may decide an arguably moot issue when it is “of public significance” and “likely
to recur, yet may evade judicial review.” Smith, 502 Mich at 631-632 (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
B. PROBATION CONDITIONS
Wandolowski challenges the probation condition that limited his contact with felons and
the condition that he must allow his probation officer into his home at any time for supervision.
Although Wandolowski concedes that the trial court already discharged him from probation, he
urges us to review these claims because they are publicly significant and likely to recur yet evade
-2-
judicial review. But this Court has held that, when a “defendant is no longer subject to the
challenged condition of his probation,” the issue is moot. People v Anderson, 284 Mich App 11,
17; 772 NW2d 792 (2009). Further, resolving Wandolowski’s arguments on the merits would
require us to consider the specific circumstances of Wandolowski and his offense and, because he
already served his probation, it would be impossible to grant him relief that would have any
practical legal effect. We do not believe these issues are of such public significance to overcome
the longstanding judicial doctrine against deciding moot cases. See Smith, 502 Mich at 631.
Moreover, “[t]he judiciary cannot simply scan the horizon for important legal issues to
opine on—we address such issues only as they arise in the genuine controversies between adverse
parties that come before us.” In re Smith, 335 Mich App 514, 521-522; 967 NW2d 857 (2021),
citing League of Women Voters of Mich v Secretary of State, 506 Mich 651; 599 n 60; 957 NW2d
731 (2020) (quotation marks omitted). In this case, Wandolowski’s term of probation concluded
more than a year ago. Neither the county prosecutor nor attorney general filed an appearance or
brief. The prosecutor’s decision not to respond to an appeal is not dispositive of whether a
competing legal position exists; however, it bolsters our view that there is no existing contest in
this case because the matter is concluded. Although the trial court subjected Wandolowski to these
conditions, Wandolowski does not contend that, during his term of probation, his probation officer
in fact forbade him from contact with a felon or actually entered his home to conduct supervision.
For these reasons, the issues are moot because there remains no controversy regarding the
probation conditions, we are not persuaded that Wandolowski’s rights were ever jeopardized by
the conditions to warrant review, and there is no basis to conclude that the same legal claims may
later evade review. See id. For that reason, we decline to reverse the trial court’s order on those
issues.
C. FINE
Wandolowski also challenges the trial court’s imposition of the $500 fine. As stated,
Wandolowski pleaded guilty to assault, a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to 93 days in jail
or a fine of up to $500, MCL 750.81(1), and the trial court ordered him to pay the maximum fine
of $500. In Thomas v Montcalm Cir Judge, 228 Mich 44, 45; 199 NW 610 (1924), the Michigan
Supreme Court explained that when a “fine has been fully paid and the judgment of conviction
thereby discharged by the defendant’s own act, the case becomes a moot one, and no relief can be
granted on appeal.” Sentencing issues also are moot when a defendant serves his sentence. See,
e.g., People v Tombs, 260 Mich App 201, 220; 679 NW2d 77 (2003) (stating that this Court cannot
provide a remedy for an alleged scoring error when the defendant served his minimum sentence),
aff’d 472 Mich 446 (2005); People v Rutherford, 208 Mich App 198, 204; 526 NW2d 620 (1994)
(holding that a challenge to the proportionality of the defendant’s sentence was moot because the
defendant served the minimum sentence). In this case, Wandolowski paid the $500 fine and the
trial court discharged him from probation and dismissed his conviction. Thus, this issue is also
moot. See Richmond, 486 Mich at 35.
III. COURT COSTS
Wandolowski challenges the trial court’s imposition of court costs and argues that it had
no statutory authority to do so. We agree.
-3-
“The right of the court to impose costs in a criminal case is statutory.” People v
Cunningham, 496 Mich 145, 149; 852 NW2d 118 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Courts may impose costs in criminal cases only when those costs are explicitly authorized by
statute. Id. “MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) permits a trial court to impose court costs on a convicted
defendant that are reasonably related to the actual costs incurred in processing a criminal case.”
People v Johnson, 336 Mich App 688, 690; 971 NW2d 692 (2021). When Wandolowski pleaded
guilty, MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), as amended by 2020 PA 151, was in effect, which granted courts
the authority to impose court costs as follows:
Until October 1, 2022, any cost reasonably related to the actual costs
incurred by the trial court without separately calculating those costs involved in the
particular case, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Salaries and benefits for relevant court personnel.
(B) Goods and services necessary for the operation of the court.
(C) Necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court
buildings and facilities. [Emphasis added.]
On October 7, 2022, MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), as amended by 2022 PA 199, went into effect, which
changed the expiration date for the court’s authority from October 1, 2022 to May 1, 2024. The
trial ordered Wandolowski to pay $1,110 in court costs on October 3, 2022, two days after the
provision authorizing these costs expired and four days before the amended law became effective.
At issue, then, is whether our Legislature intended for the amended statute to retroactively
authorize trial courts to impose court costs during this gap.
“Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively unless the Legislature clearly manifests the
intent for retroactive application.” Buhl v City of Oak Park, 507 Mich 236, 244; 968 NW2d 348(2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). When our Legislature amended MCL
769.1k(1)(b)(iii) with 2022 PA 199, it did not state an intent to apply the law retroactively.
However, our Legislature applied the statute retroactively when it amended the statute in 2014.
See People v Konopka, 309 Mich App 345, 357; 869 NW2d 651 (2015); MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii),
as amended by 2014 PA 151, enacting section 1. Our Legislature knows how to state its intent to
provide for retroactive application of a statute, and it chose not to do so. Moreover, were we to
apply MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), as amended by 2022 PA 199, retroactively, it would allow the court
to impose court costs when it was not explicitly authorized by law, which would also impact
Wandolowski’s legal obligations without supporting statutory authority. Because our Legislature
did not intend to apply the amended law retroactively, and there is no sound basis to do so, the trial
court erred by imposing those costs on Wandolowski. See Cunningham, 496 Mich at 149. For
this reason, the trial court must reimburse Wandolowski because there was no statutory authority
for the court to impose court costs. See People v Nance, 214 Mich App 257, 259-260; 542 NW2d
358 (1995).
-4-
Reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett
-5-