Petition for removal from the sex offender registry & discontinuation of the obligation to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); Whether retroactive imposition of MCL 28.722 violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws; Lifetime sex offender registration requirement; MCL 28.725(13)

The court held that the trial court did not err by requiring defendant to register under the SORA. In 1992, defendant was sentenced to one year in jail and five years’ probation after pleading nolo contendere to CSC II with the victim under 13 years of age. While serving probation, the SORA went into effect. His probation was subsequently amended to require him to register as a sex offender for 25 years. He was later discharged from probation and was eligible for automatic removal from the SORA. However, after amendment of the SORA in 2011, he was subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by retroactively applying the 2011 SORA amendments, and that he must be removed from the SORA because he completed his 25-year requirement in 2020. “[D]efendant’s lifetime registration obligation is imposed by the 2021 SORA, not the 2011 SORA. The 2021 SORA clearly and unambiguously requires an individual to register as a sex offender if he or she was convicted before the SORA initially took effect . . . , but was still ‘on probation or parole, committed to jail, [or] committed to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections.’ Because defendant was serving his five-year probation term when SORA took effect in 1995, he must comply with the registration requirements.” His CSC II offense was “classified as a Tier III offense under the 2021 SORA.” As such, he “is subject to lifetime registration under MCL 28.725(13).” Affirmed.