Motion for removal from the registration requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); Whether lifetime registration under SORA constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under the Michigan Constitution for juvenile offenders convicted & sentenced as adults; People v Betts; People v Lymon; Presumptive proportionality & validity of a sentence mandated by the Legislature; Facial & as-applied challenges

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for removal from the SORA’s registration requirements for his CSC II conviction, concluding lifetime SORA registration is not cruel or unusual punishment for juvenile offenders convicted and sentenced as adults. It applied the four factors set forth in Lymon. As to the first factor, he was sentenced “to a juvenile facility in accord with Public Act 150. Thereafter, he did not comply with the rules of his juvenile placement, began to groom peers that were younger or suffered from emotional issues, engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviors, and failed to obey staff. It was determined that [he] could not be released because he failed to incorporate his training into daily life and that he presented a high risk of reoffending.” Further, the court found “the gravity of the offense was the most heinous. [He] removed the victim from the care of an adult and took him into another room” where he removed “the victim’s pajamas and diaper to penetrate the victim.” The 14-month-old victim “was limited in the ability to ascertain what was transpiring as well as to articulate the need for help.” The court also noted “defendant had been in the treatment and care of mental health professionals for a number of years. Yet, it did not appear that he benefited from medication and treatment. He committed this offense at the age of 16, was sentenced to a juvenile facility at the age of 17, and resentenced as an adult at the age of 19. At the time of his adult sentencing, [he] was deemed a high risk to reoffend.” The record did not support his claim “the severity of the offense does not equate with the harshness of the penalty . . . .” Given the gravity of his “offense, mandatory lifetime registration is a proportionate punishment.” As to the second factor, lifetime registration “is not the only mandatory penalty imposed in Michigan” and a legislatively mandated sentence is presumptively proportional and valid. As to the third factor, he “received an individual assessment of risk, and it was determined that an adult sentence and mandatory SORA registration was required when the diversionary juvenile program failed.” As to the fourth factor, regardless of whether the penalty advanced the rehabilitation goal, he did not meet his burden of showing the mandatory lifetime registration requirement was invalid. Finally, the court disagreed that remand was “warranted for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether mandatory lifetime SORA registration is cruel or unusual punishment as applied to” him. Affirmed.