People v. Temelkoski
307 Mich. App. 241
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 1994 Temelkoski (age 19) pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II) involving a 12‑year‑old; he was adjudicated under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA) and completed probation in 1997, after which the case was dismissed.
- Because his HYTA adjudication occurred before Oct. 1, 2004, SORA treats him as "convicted" for registration purposes, and CSC‑II involving a child under 13 is Tier III, requiring lifetime registration.
- In 2012 Temelkoski moved to be removed from the sex‑offender registry, arguing SORA’s application to him is cruel or unusual punishment and violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; he submitted a psychological risk assessment and described life harms from registry status.
- The prosecutor argued SORA is regulatory (not punitive) and Dipiazza was distinguishable; trial court granted removal, finding SORA punitive and ex post facto as applied.
- The prosecutor appealed; the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding SORA is civil and non‑punitive as applied to Temelkoski.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORA’s registration as applied to Temelkoski constitutes "punishment" for constitutional purposes | SORA is regulatory and non‑punitive; public safety justifies registration | Temelkoski: registry is punitive because it brands him as "convicted" despite HYTA dismissal and causes severe life harms | Held: Legislature intended SORA as civil; applying Mendoza‑Martinez/Earl factors, SORA is not punitive as applied to Temelkoski |
| Whether SORA as applied violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | N/A (prosecution contends no Ex Post Facto problem) | Temelkoski: retroactive application increases punishment for conduct occurring before SORA/eligibility changes | Held: No Ex Post Facto violation because SORA is non‑punitive as applied |
| Whether SORA as applied amounts to cruel or unusual punishment | N/A | Temelkoski: registration requirement is disproportionate/harsh given HYTA dismissal and circumstances | Held: Not cruel or unusual — because SORA is regulatory, not punishment |
| Whether Dipiazza controls this case | Prosecution: Dipiazza limited/distinguishable | Temelkoski: Dipiazza supports removal (HYTA + consensual youthful conduct) | Held: Dipiazza not controlling — facts differ (victim age 12 here) and 2011 consent exception (post‑Dipiazza) undercuts that analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. DiPiazza, 286 Mich. App. 137 (Mich. Ct. App.) (held SORA punitive as applied to HYTA defendant in Romeo‑and‑Juliet facts)
- People v. Earl, 495 Mich. 33 (Mich.) (framework: determine legislative intent, then apply Mendoza‑Martinez factors)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S.) (Alaska registry is civil; Mendoza‑Martinez factors guide punitive‑effects analysis)
- Doe v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 490 F.3d 491 (6th Cir.) (explains SORA/HYTA interaction and public registry implications)
- People v. Pennington, 240 Mich. App. 188 (Mich. Ct. App.) (SORA registration is non‑punitive in adult context)
- People v. Golba, 273 Mich. App. 603 (Mich. Ct. App.) (SORA not punitive; purpose is public protection)
- In re Ayres, 239 Mich. App. 8 (Mich. Ct. App.) (juvenile SORA challenge; held non‑punitive under earlier, non‑public regime)