People of Michigan v. Wayne Duane Jenkins
333709
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- In 2003 Jenkins pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct (victim under 13); he admitted licking a 5‑year‑old relative. He was assigned HYTA status, jailed 183 days, and placed on 5 years probation.
- Jenkins was required to register under Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and is classified as a tier‑III offender.
- In 2016 Jenkins petitioned to discontinue registration and sought removal from the public sex offender registry (PSOR), arguing HYTA status or prior law meant he should not face lifetime registration.
- The trial court found Jenkins in a “gray area,” concluded HYTA was intended to avoid registration, and ordered him off the PSOR and limited to a 25‑year registration period.
- The prosecutor appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed SORA’s application de novo and examined statutory history and eligibility for discontinuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jenkins must remain subject to lifetime SORA registration as a tier‑III offender | State: Tier‑III offenders are subject to lifetime registration; Jenkins meets tier‑III criteria | Jenkins: HYTA assignment or prior law meant he was not required to register or only for 25 years | Held: Jenkins is a convicted tier‑III offender and remains subject to lifetime registration under SORA |
| Whether HYTA assignment excused SORA registration | State: HYTA assignment before Oct 1, 2004 does not avoid SORA registration for listed offenses | Jenkins: HYTA status indicated intent he would not have to register | Held: HYTA status here did not exempt Jenkins from SORA; statutory scheme treated him as convicted for SORA purposes |
| Whether changes in SORA law justify reducing registration period retroactively | State: Changes do not eliminate lifetime requirement here; SORA generally is not punitive so retroactive application has been upheld | Jenkins: Law changed to increase registration; retroactive effect would be unfair given HYTA | Held: Trial court erred; the relevant lifetime‑registration provisions existed at time of offense/conviction and were not changed to Jenkins’s benefit |
| Whether Jenkins met statutory grounds to discontinue registration or to be excluded from PSOR | State: Jenkins does not meet MCL 28.728c criteria for tier‑III discontinuance nor PSOR exceptions | Jenkins: Checked boxes in petition but did not press statutory arguments at hearing | Held: Jenkins did not satisfy statutory discontinuance criteria or PSOR exceptions; no relief available under SORA |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Anderson, 284 Mich. App. 11 (court reviews SORA construction de novo)
- People v Temelkoski, 307 Mich. App. 241 (SORA generally not considered punitive; retroactive application discussed)
- People v Bosca, 310 Mich. App. 1 (discusses constitutional challenges and SORA application)
- People v Rahilly, 247 Mich. App. 108 (discusses creation and operation of the public sex offender registry)