Motion to set aside a conviction; MCL 780.621d; People v Butka; Principle that the nature of the offense itself does not preclude the setting aside of an offender’s conviction; People v Rosen

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction. He pled guilty in the district court to accosting a child for an immoral purpose. Three years later, he filed a motion to set aside his conviction, which was denied. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court based its decision solely on the nature of the offense, which was improper, and did not render adequate findings to account for both of the statutory elements. It noted that the trial court did not articulate a determination on whether defendant’s circumstances and good behavior weighed against setting aside his conviction. And with “respect to the public welfare, [it] noted only that it had not received input from the victim of the offense and that the nature of the offense was ‘pretty troubling.’” But it “did not address how setting aside defendant’s conviction would be contrary to the ‘prosperity, wellbeing, or convenience of the public at large,’ by impacting, for example, the societal interests of safety, order, and morals.” The court directed that on remand “the petition should be considered under the proper legal framework, consistent with MCL 780.621d, and the holdings set forth in Rosen, and Butka.” The trial court “shall conduct a new evidentiary hearing and petitioner shall be permitted to supplement the record with additional information, e.g., affidavits, professional assessments, witness testimony, etc.” Reversed and remanded.