By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to prohibit a defendant from contacting her husband as a condition of her probation.
The court ruled that in the case the restriction was narrowly tailored and reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation after her husband contributed to multiple probation violations.
The ruling established that when a spouse causes a person to violate the terms of their probation, the court has the authority to order a cessation of contact between them.
If a person’s spouse is causing the person to violate probation, a court can order that person not to have contact with his or her spouse, according to a recent Court of Appeals decision.
In People of the State of Michigan v. Sherrie Lee Lillis (COA Docket No. 372637), the defendant appealed the decision of a lower court to enforce the terms of her probation restricting her ability to have contact with her husband.
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision in a published ruling.
The court recognized the probation condition at issue implicated the defendant’s constitutional rights and applied a special-scrutiny standard to examine whether the condition was reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with the constitutional rights at issue.
The defendant, Lillis, pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in September 2023. As part of her three-year probation term, she was prohibited from having “verbal, written, electronic or physical contact, without permission of the field agent, with anyone you know to have a felony record.”
At her November 2023 sentencing hearing, Lillis informed the trial court of her recent marriage to Trevis Beemer, who has a felony record. His criminal record included convictions for possession of methamphetamine and tampering with a monitoring device.
The trial court expressed concern as to the wisdom of Lillis and Beemer’s relationship, given she was so new to recovery, but it authorized contact with Beemer because he appeared “to be sincere and clean.”
The court warned that if Beemer was no longer doing well in recovery, Lillis would have to disassociate from him.
In December 2023, Lillis admitted to using methamphetamine following a positive drug test. She was ordered to participate in and complete inpatient treatment, as well as successfully complete Adult Recovery Court programming, which includes an electronic monitoring program.
In February 2024, Lillis appeared before the trial court again for another probation violation after the probation department reported that she repeatedly failed to abide by her tether schedule “due to being with her husband.”
The court stated that the violation wouldn’t result in the termination of probation, but Lillis would have limited contact with Beemer, which would have to be approved in advance by her probation agent.
Later that month, Lillis again repeatedly failed to abide by her tether schedule due to being with her husband, and in March 2024, she was instructed not to have contact with her husband at all.
Lillis continued to have contact with her husband, and later that month, Beemer was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine. While Lillis was being interviewed by her probation agent, Beemer called her and the two spoke briefly. After she hung up, Lillis informed the agent “she was done.”
Afterward, Lillis served 20 days in jail as a sanction, and her number was blocked at the jail so Beemer could not contact her.
In May, the probation agent discovered Lillis and Beemer had spoken via three-way calling and went on various dates. Following the discovery, the agent concluded that Lillis “could not be honest with her agent, the judge, or the ARC team” and she was unsuccessfully discharged from the program.
The trial court held another probation violation hearing on May 16, 2024, in which Lillis admitted to speaking with her husband and pleaded guilty to violating the special probation conditions. She was sentenced to 12 months in jail with credit for 46 days served and to complete an additional recovery program, at which point she would be unsuccessfully discharged from probation.
Lillis appealed the decision.
She contended that the trial court erred by imposing and enforcing a probation condition that prohibited her from having contact with her husband.
“We disagree,” Judge Daniel Korobkin wrote in the decision for the court, which was also signed by Judge Michael Kelly and Sima Patel.
“Inasmuch as the record reflects that defendant’s husband was determined to be the reason why defendant did not comply with her mandated ARC programming requirements, a graduated escalation of restrictions imposed on defendant’s contact with him was both reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with her constitutional rights,” Korobkin wrote. “In this case, Beemer had prior convictions for possession of methamphetamine and tampering with a monitoring device, and defendant’s probation violations similarly involved relapsed methamphetamine use and, while spending time with Beemer, tether violations.”
The record before the court showed that the defendant did not demonstrate by imposing and enforcing the probation condition given the circumstances of the case.
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to prohibit a defendant from contacting her husband as a condition of her probation.
The court ruled that in the case the restriction was narrowly tailored and reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation after her husband contributed to multiple probation violations.
The ruling established that when a spouse causes a person to violate the terms of their probation, the court has the authority to order a cessation of contact between them.
If a person’s spouse is causing the person to violate probation, a court can order that person not to have contact with his or her spouse, according to a recent Court of Appeals decision.
In People of the State of Michigan v. Sherrie Lee Lillis (COA Docket No. 372637), the defendant appealed the decision of a lower court to enforce the terms of her probation restricting her ability to have contact with her husband.
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision in a published ruling.
The court recognized the probation condition at issue implicated the defendant’s constitutional rights and applied a special-scrutiny standard to examine whether the condition was reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with the constitutional rights at issue.
The defendant, Lillis, pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in September 2023. As part of her three-year probation term, she was prohibited from having “verbal, written, electronic or physical contact, without permission of the field agent, with anyone you know to have a felony record.”
At her November 2023 sentencing hearing, Lillis informed the trial court of her recent marriage to Trevis Beemer, who has a felony record. His criminal record included convictions for possession of methamphetamine and tampering with a monitoring device.
The trial court expressed concern as to the wisdom of Lillis and Beemer’s relationship, given she was so new to recovery, but it authorized contact with Beemer because he appeared “to be sincere and clean.”
The court warned that if Beemer was no longer doing well in recovery, Lillis would have to disassociate from him.
In December 2023, Lillis admitted to using methamphetamine following a positive drug test. She was ordered to participate in and complete inpatient treatment, as well as successfully complete Adult Recovery Court programming, which includes an electronic monitoring program.
In February 2024, Lillis appeared before the trial court again for another probation violation after the probation department reported that she repeatedly failed to abide by her tether schedule “due to being with her husband.”
The court stated that the violation wouldn’t result in the termination of probation, but Lillis would have limited contact with Beemer, which would have to be approved in advance by her probation agent.
Later that month, Lillis again repeatedly failed to abide by her tether schedule due to being with her husband, and in March 2024, she was instructed not to have contact with her husband at all.
Lillis continued to have contact with her husband, and later that month, Beemer was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine. While Lillis was being interviewed by her probation agent, Beemer called her and the two spoke briefly. After she hung up, Lillis informed the agent “she was done.”
Afterward, Lillis served 20 days in jail as a sanction, and her number was blocked at the jail so Beemer could not contact her.
In May, the probation agent discovered Lillis and Beemer had spoken via three-way calling and went on various dates. Following the discovery, the agent concluded that Lillis “could not be honest with her agent, the judge, or the ARC team” and she was unsuccessfully discharged from the program.
The trial court held another probation violation hearing on May 16, 2024, in which Lillis admitted to speaking with her husband and pleaded guilty to violating the special probation conditions. She was sentenced to 12 months in jail with credit for 46 days served and to complete an additional recovery program, at which point she would be unsuccessfully discharged from probation.
Lillis appealed the decision.
She contended that the trial court erred by imposing and enforcing a probation condition that prohibited her from having contact with her husband.
“We disagree,” Judge Daniel Korobkin wrote in the decision for the court, which was also signed by Judge Michael Kelly and Sima Patel.
“Inasmuch as the record reflects that defendant’s husband was determined to be the reason why defendant did not comply with her mandated ARC programming requirements, a graduated escalation of restrictions imposed on defendant’s contact with him was both reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with her constitutional rights,” Korobkin wrote. “In this case, Beemer had prior convictions for possession of methamphetamine and tampering with a monitoring device, and defendant’s probation violations similarly involved relapsed methamphetamine use and, while spending time with Beemer, tether violations.”
The record before the court showed that the defendant did not demonstrate by imposing and enforcing the probation condition given the circumstances of the case.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
