Court Opinion

ID: 9950905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 05:06:40.503271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:25.095096
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

In re MJB, Minor.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     March 14, 2024
               Petitioner-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 364707
                                                                     Muskegon Circuit Court
                                                                     Family Division
MJB,                                                                 LC No. 2022-002164-DL

               Respondent-Appellant.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and REDFORD and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Respondent, MJB, a minor, pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-
III), MCL 750.520d(1)(a). At the plea hearing, the attorneys for both sides and MJB acknowledged
that MJB would have to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721
et seq. After the plea hearing, however, MJB moved to strike the SORA registration requirement.
The trial court denied that motion, but MJB argues on appeal that the trial court erred in so ruling,
and the prosecution now agrees that MJB need not register under SORA. We likewise agree that
MJB is not required to register under SORA. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order denying
MJB’s motion to strike the SORA registration requirement, vacate the order of adjudication to the
extent that it requires MJB to register under SORA, and remand for further proceedings.

                                 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

        MJB was the subject of a delinquency petition alleging that he committed CSC-III. At that
time, he was 15 years old. MJB thereafter was the subject of a second delinquency petition, which
alleged that MJB committed first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I). On November 8, 2022,
MJB pleaded guilty to the CSC-III charge in exchange for dismissal of the CSC-I charge. At the
plea hearing, the attorneys and MJB acknowledged that MJB would have to register under SORA.
Thus, in the order of adjudication, the trial court ordered MJB to register under SORA.

                                                -1-
        On December 6, 2022, MJB moved to strike the term in the order of adjudication requiring
him to register under SORA, contending that juvenile respondents no longer had to register under
SORA because orders of disposition are not open to the general public and registration is required
only when the order of disposition is open to the general public. Petitioner objected, asserting that
despite recent amendments to the relevant statutes, the Legislature left intact the requirement that
Tier III juvenile offenders must register under SORA. Accordingly, the Legislature intended that
juveniles who commit Tier III offenses still must register under SORA even if their adjudications
are sealed. On January 4, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the motion and ultimately agreed
with petitioner. Therefore, the trial court denied MJB’s motion. This appealed followed.

                                     II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

         On appeal, MJB argues that he was not statutorily required to register under SORA, so the
trial court erred when it denied his motion to strike the SORA registration requirement. Petitioner
does not contest MJB’s interpretation of the relevant statutes or oppose MJB’s claim that he should
not have to register under SORA. We agree with both parties that MJB is not statutorily required
to register under SORA. Under MCL 28.723(1)(a), a person “who is convicted of a listed offense
after October 1, 1995” must register under SORA. CSC-III is a “listed offense.” MCL 28.722(i),
(v)(iv); MCL 750.520d. But in SORA, MCL 28.722(a)(iii) defines the word “convicted” to mean:

       (iii) Having an order of disposition entered under section 18 of chapter XIIA of the
       probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.18, that is open to the general
       public under section 28 of chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288,
       MCL 712A.28, if both of the following apply:

       (A) The individual was 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense.

       (B) The order of disposition is for the commission of an offense that would classify
       the individual as a tier III offender.

According to MCL 712A.28(3),1 in cases involving juveniles, “[b]eginning January 1, 2021, . . .
records of a case brought before the court are not open to the general public and are open only to
persons having a legitimate interest.”

        As a result of those statutory provisions, individuals must register under SORA if they are
“convicted” of a listed offense after October 1, 1995. See MCL 28.723(1)(a). The definition of
“convicted” under SORA for juvenile proceedings only refers to orders of disposition that are open
“to the general public.” See MCL 28.722(a)(iii). As of January 1, 2021, records in juvenile cases,
including orders of disposition, are not open to the general public. See MCL 712A.28(3). Here,
the petition concerning MJB was filed after January 1, 2021. Therefore, the records in his case are
not open to the general public. See MCL 712A.28(3). Because the records in MJB’s case are not
open to the general public, MJB’s disposition does not constitute a “conviction” under SORA. See

1
  That statutory provision is contained in the juvenile code, MCL 712A.1 et seq., which is part of
the probate code of 1939, as identified in MCL 28.722(a)(iii).

                                                -2-
MCL 28.722(a)(iii). Because MJB was not “convicted,” MCL 28.723(1)(a) does not require him
to register under SORA. Thus, the trial court erred when it ordered MJB to register under SORA
and when it denied MJB’s motion to strike the SORA registration requirement. Consequently, we
vacate the trial court’s denial of MJB’s motion to strike the registration requirement and remand
the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.2

       Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                               /s/ Brock A. Swartzle
                                                               /s/ James Robert Redford
                                                               /s/ Christopher P. Yates

2
  In its brief on appeal, petitioner asks us to remand the case to afford petitioner the opportunity to
move to withdraw MJB’s plea agreement in light of the fact that he is not required to register under
SORA. We remand this case to enable the trial court to address its errors, at which time petitioner
may make its request to the trial court. We offer no opinion on how the trial court should resolve
that request.

                                                 -3-