People of Michigan v. Robert Lee Barnard
367163
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Robert Lee Barnard was convicted in 2005 of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving victims under 13.
- In 2021, Michigan amended its Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), requiring Barnard to register as a sex offender upon release.
- While incarcerated, Barnard filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that applying the 2021 SORA to him would be unconstitutional (ex post facto).
- The trial court denied Barnard’s motion, and he appealed that decision.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial using an abuse of discretion standard and considered constitutional arguments de novo.
- A relevant, directly-on-point published appellate case controlled the constitutional question at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2021 SORA's application constitutes ex post facto punishment | SORA does not violate ex post facto clauses, citing legislative intent and precedent | Retroactive application of 2021 SORA is an impermissible ex post facto law | Application of 2021 SORA is not punitive and does not violate ex post facto clauses |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Christian, 510 Mich 52 (Mich. 2022) (standard for abuse of discretion in motions for relief from judgment)
- People v. Benton, 294 Mich App 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (statutes are presumed constitutional; burden of proving unconstitutionality rests with challenger)
- People v. Sadows, 283 Mich App 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (burden of proof for showing statute’s invalidity)
- People v. Perkins, 280 Mich App 244 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (framework for analyzing ex post facto claims)