Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court held that its decision in People v Betts applies retroactively to defendants seeking collateral review. Betts established a new substantive rule prohibiting application of the 2011 Sex Offenders Registration Act to certain defendants whose registrable offenses predated the amendments, because the law constituted unconstitutional ex post facto punishment. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether People v. Betts announced a new rule of law under the federal retroactivity standard.
- Whether the rule announced in Betts was substantive or procedural for purposes of retroactive application on collateral review.
- Whether Betts applies retroactively under both federal and Michigan constitutional law.
Holdings
- Betts announced a new rule because, when Shaver's conviction became final, a reasonable Michigan jurist would not have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that retroactive application of SORA violated the federal Constitution.
- Betts announced a substantive rule under the federal retroactivity standard.
- Betts applies retroactively to defendants on collateral review under both federal and Michigan constitutional law.
Key quotations
“Substantive rules, on the other hand, are those “forbid[ding] criminal punishment of certain primary conduct or prohibit[ing] a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense.”” (slip op. at 14)
“The Betts rule fits within Teague’s core exemption—finality concerns give way where a court ruling takes out of the hands of the government the authority to punish a group of people in a certain way.” (slip op. at 15)
“We hold that Betts applies retroactively to defendants on collateral review under both federal and state retroactivity standards.” (slip op. at 16)
Factual background
Shaver was sentenced as a juvenile in 2004 for three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and was required to register under the version of SORA then in effect. In 2015, after updating his address in anticipation of a move, he was unable to move into the new residence, leaving his registered address incorrect for 19 days. He pleaded guilty to a second SORA-registration offense under the 2011 SORA and received a jail sentence, probation, and later a prison term for violating probation. After Betts invalidated retroactive application of the 2011 SORA, he sought to vacate his conviction.
Procedural history
Shaver pleaded guilty in 2015 to a second SORA-registration offense and was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender. After People v. Betts held that the 2011 SORA constituted unconstitutional ex post facto punishment for persons whose registrable offenses predated the amendments, Shaver moved for relief from judgment. The Tuscola County Circuit Court vacated his conviction without first giving the prosecution time to respond. The Court of Appeals reversed both on procedural grounds and on the retroactivity issue. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals regarding retroactivity and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The Court did not retain jurisdiction.