In re Tiemann
297 Mich. App. 250
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Tiemann, a 15-year-old, pled no contest to one CSC III count involving a 13–16-year-old victim; others were dismissed.
- Trial court denied withdrawal of plea, including lack of understanding of SORA registration consequences.
- An order of disposition placed Tiemann on six months’ probation at his parents’ home.
- A later consent hearing addressed whether the victim consented; court held Tiemann must register under SORA.
- SORA was amended to allow excusing registration if the victim consented; trial court held Tiemann not exempt.
- Tiemann appeals the disposition order and the consent-based SORA ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 750.520d conflict with public policy or clarity when minors consent within the same age group? | Tiemann argues public policy/ambiguity bar prosecution for consensual minor-on-minor acts. | Hil-debrant supports prosecution within the same age block; no policy void. | No public policy or ambiguity bar. |
| Does equal protection require differently treating male vs female minors in similar conduct? | Tiemann alleges gender-based prosecution within same age class violates equal protection. | HS and Tiemann were similarly situated; prosecution not based on gender. | No equal protection violation; not motivated by gender. |
| Was the plea's factual basis properly established and waivable if based on police/interview reports? | Tiemann contends the plea factual basis relied on disputed materials and he could withdraw. | Waived issue since no challenge to factual basis at plea or motion to withdraw. | Waived; no appellate review on this issue. |
| Is the timing of SORA registration proper or moot given the consent proceedings and amendments? | Tiemann argues registration should await consent determination. | Consent hearing occurred; mootness and regulatory nature of SORA govern. | Issue moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hildebrant, 548 NW2d 715 (Mich. App. 1996) (no public policy bar where minor-minor within same protected age group can be prosecuted)
- People v Valentin, 577 NW2d 73 (Mich. 1998) (statutory interpretation guiding plain-language application)
- In re Hawley, 606 NW2d 50 (Mich. App. 1999) (equal protection framework for pornographic-minor prosecutions)
- People v Ford, 331 NW2d 878 (Mich. 1982) (two-pronged equal protection test for selective prosecution)
- In re VanDalen, 809 NW2d 412 (Mich. App. 2011) (due process considerations for SORA-like procedures)
- In re Wentworth, 651 NW2d 773 (Mich. App. 2002) (SORA-related notices/regulatory nature; no due process deprivation)
- Doe v Kelley, 961 F Supp 1105 (W.D. Mich. 1997) (federal treatment of SORA-like regimes as regulatory, not punitive)
- Pennington, 240 Mich App 188 (Mich. App. 2000) (SORA’s purpose as information-access mechanism; not punishment)