in Re Micah Melchizedek Daniel
334057
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Complainant (15) and co-defendant T.B. (16) were residents of a detention facility; complainant performed oral sex on T.B.
- Respondent (16) aided and abetted T.B.; complainant’s forensic interview stated she consented to acts with T.B. but said respondent groped her and forcibly pushed her head down onto T.B.’s penis—these acts were nonconsensual.
- Respondent pleaded responsible to CSC-III (a Tier III offense via aiding and abetting) and CSC-IV for touching; Tier III ordinarily requires SORA registration.
- SORA contains a consent exception: if victim consented, victim was 13–15, and offender is no more than 4 years older, court may exempt registration (MCL 28.722(w)(iv)).
- Lower court found complainant consented to the conduct and exempted respondent from registration; petitioner appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the record showed nonconsensual conduct by respondent and that the lower court improperly shifted respondent’s burden to petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (People) | Respondent (Daniel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent met the SORA consent exception and may be exempted from sex-offender registration | Victim did not consent to respondent’s conduct (groping and forcing head down); exemption not met | Argued for exemption based on overall consensual sexual act between complainant and co-defendant | Reversed exemption; court found complainant did not consent to respondent’s specific acts and respondent failed to carry burden under MCL 28.723a(1) |
| Whether SORA registration is cruel/cruel and/or unusual punishment as applied to respondent | SORA is civil and nonpunitive; amended consent exception addresses Dipiazza concerns; registration constitutional | Argued juvenile registration punitive and violates Eighth Amendment and state constitution | Court held SORA is civil and not punitive as applied; declined to declare SORA unconstitutional for respondent |
| Whether respondent should be allowed to withdraw plea because of erroneous advice about registration duration | Petitioner: plea was knowing and voluntary; incorrect duration did not invalidate plea | Sought opportunity to withdraw plea because counsel was told 25 years but registration is lifetime | Denied: plea was voluntary and respondent expressly declined to withdraw; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for determining whether registration is punitive)
- People v. Earl, 495 Mich. 33 (Mich.) (adopted Mendoza–Martinez factors for punitive-effect analysis)
- People v. Dipiazza, 286 Mich. App. 137 (Mich. Ct. App.) (SORA held punitive as applied in Romeo-and-Juliet HYTA context)
- People v. Temelkoski, 307 Mich. App. 241 (Mich. Ct. App.) (SORA not punitive as applied after 2011 consent amendment)
- People v. Tucker, 312 Mich. App. 645 (Mich. Ct. App.) (upheld student safety zones and in-person reporting against punitive-effect challenge)
- People v. Anderson, 284 Mich. App. 11 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard of review for SORA application)