People v. Tucker
312 Mich. App. 645
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Tucker was convicted in 1990 of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving penetration and was on probation until 1993.
- SORA was enacted in 1995; initial registry applied to listed offenses, but Tucker was not required to register because his probation ended before the registry.
- 2011 amendments added a recapture provision MCL 28.723(1)(e) and a three-tier system for disclosure and reporting.
- In 2013 Tucker pled no contest to felonious assault and domestic violence under a Cobbs agreement; the court informed him he must register for life as a Tier III offender.
- The registration obligation arose from Tucker’s 2013 felony, not his 1990 conviction, linking the 1990 act to the 2013 sentence; Tucker moved to invalidate the sentence to remove SORA, which the trial court denied.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the recapture provision’s constitutionality and held that SORA’s school-safety zones and in-person reporting are not punishment under the Mendoza-Martinez analysis, affirming the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the recapture provision Ex Post Facto? | Recapture attaches penalties to preexisting convictions retroactively. | Recapture ties to subsequent offenses, not retroactive punishment of the 1990 conviction. | No ex post facto violation; applies to the 2013 felony, not the 1990 conviction. |
| Are school safety zones punishments under Mendoza-Martinez? | Zones are punitive restraints that deter and punish. | Zones serve public safety and are not purely punitive. | Not punitive; balance of Mendoza-Martinez factors does not establish punishment. |
| Are in-person reporting requirements punishments under Mendoza-Martinez? | In-person reporting is overly burdensome and punitive. | Reporting is a rational, nonpunitive safeguard. | Not punishment; requirements are nonpunitive and reasonably related to public safety. |
| Do recapture, zones, and reporting violate cruel or unusual punishment? | Combined scheme is excessive punishment. | Civil regulatory scheme adapted to public safety objectives. | Recapture constitutional; zones and reporting not cruel or unusual punishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (US Supreme Court, 2003) (sex-offender registry not punishment; public safety justification)
- Temelkoski v. People, 307 Mich. App. 241 (Mich. Ct. App., 2014) (applies Mendoza-Martinez framework to SORA amendments)
- People v. Callon, 256 Mich. App. 312 (Mich. Ct. App., 2003) (recidivist statutes focus on later offenses, not earlier convictions)
- People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276 (Mich. Supreme Court, 1993) (Cobbs agreement; foundational sentencing procedures)
- Riley v. Parole Bd., 216 Mich. App. 242 (Mich. Ct. App., 1996) (recidivist considerations and Ex Post Facto discussion)