State Appellate Defender Office’s Emma Lawton and Jessica Zimbelman will present argument before the Michigan Supreme Court on March 11 on issues involving the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), and the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA).
The cases are:
—Emma Lawton, People v Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess, MSC No. 167895 (COA No. 366148)
The court directed the parties to address: “(1) whether MCL 771.3(1)(a), which makes it a mandatory condition of probation that “the probationer shall not violate any criminal law of . . . the United States,” requires trial courts to bar probationers from engaging in marijuana use that is otherwise permitted by the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq.; and (2) if not, whether and under what circumstances a trial court may prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a discretionary condition of probation under MCL 771.3(3).” The argument is scheduled for 10:50 a.m. on March 11.
—Jessica Zimbelman, People v James Ellis, Jr., MSC No. 166766 (COA No. 363845)
The court directed the parties to address: “(1) whether MCL 28.723(1)(e), the ‘recapture’ provision of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021, constitutes ex post facto punishment under the United States or Michigan Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 9; Const 1963, art 1, § 10, see People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021); (2) whether requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender under MCL 28.723(1)(e) and MCL 28.721 et seq., constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16, or US Const, Am VIII, see People v Lymon, 514 Mich ___ (July 29, 2024) (Docket No. 164685), and People v Kardasz, 513 Mich 1118 (2024) (ordering oral argument on the application for leave to appeal in Docket No. 165008); (3) whether the defendant’s out-of-state residency and the conditional application of SORA while the defendant remains an out-of-state resident renders the constitutional issues here not ripe for review; (4) for ex post facto purposes, whether it is the later, nonsexual offense that triggers SORA registration rather than the earlier sexual offense, see People v Klinesmith, 342 Mich App 39 (2022); (5) how, if at all, the sexual nature of the prior unregistered sex offense affects the determination whether recapture is cruel or unusual punishment, or punishment at all; and (6) assuming arguendo that the focus of the recapture inquiry is properly on the earlier sex offense, whether the defendant’s entitlement to relief on ex post facto grounds depends on this court’s decision in Kardasz.” The argument is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on March 11.
The arguments can be watched online at www.courts.michigan.gov/court-livestream.
The cases are:
—Emma Lawton, People v Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess, MSC No. 167895 (COA No. 366148)
The court directed the parties to address: “(1) whether MCL 771.3(1)(a), which makes it a mandatory condition of probation that “the probationer shall not violate any criminal law of . . . the United States,” requires trial courts to bar probationers from engaging in marijuana use that is otherwise permitted by the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq.; and (2) if not, whether and under what circumstances a trial court may prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a discretionary condition of probation under MCL 771.3(3).” The argument is scheduled for 10:50 a.m. on March 11.
—Jessica Zimbelman, People v James Ellis, Jr., MSC No. 166766 (COA No. 363845)
The court directed the parties to address: “(1) whether MCL 28.723(1)(e), the ‘recapture’ provision of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021, constitutes ex post facto punishment under the United States or Michigan Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 9; Const 1963, art 1, § 10, see People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021); (2) whether requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender under MCL 28.723(1)(e) and MCL 28.721 et seq., constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16, or US Const, Am VIII, see People v Lymon, 514 Mich ___ (July 29, 2024) (Docket No. 164685), and People v Kardasz, 513 Mich 1118 (2024) (ordering oral argument on the application for leave to appeal in Docket No. 165008); (3) whether the defendant’s out-of-state residency and the conditional application of SORA while the defendant remains an out-of-state resident renders the constitutional issues here not ripe for review; (4) for ex post facto purposes, whether it is the later, nonsexual offense that triggers SORA registration rather than the earlier sexual offense, see People v Klinesmith, 342 Mich App 39 (2022); (5) how, if at all, the sexual nature of the prior unregistered sex offense affects the determination whether recapture is cruel or unusual punishment, or punishment at all; and (6) assuming arguendo that the focus of the recapture inquiry is properly on the earlier sex offense, whether the defendant’s entitlement to relief on ex post facto grounds depends on this court’s decision in Kardasz.” The argument is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on March 11.
The arguments can be watched online at www.courts.michigan.gov/court-livestream.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
