Motion for relief from judgment (MFRJ) seeking SORA removal; MCR 6.508(D); “Good cause” & “actual prejudice”; Invalid sentence; MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b)(iv); Ex post facto challenge to the 2021 SORA; People v Betts; Whether the 2021 SORA constitutes criminal punishment as to sexual offenders; People v Lymon; People v Kiczenski; Reaching the right result for the wrong reason

The court held that although the trial court used the wrong rationale to reject defendant’s MFRJ, it nonetheless reached the right result because the 2021 SORA is not punishment as applied to sexual offenders and defendant failed to show an invalid sentence under MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b)(iv). In 2005, defendant, after a plea, was ordered to comply with Michigan’s SORA. In 2023, acting pro se, he sought removal from the registry based on Betts and the SORA amendments. The trial court denied his motion, reasoning Betts would apply only if he had a conviction for failing to comply with SORA. On appeal, the court found that “the trial court’s holding that defendant must be convicted of failing to comply with SORA in order to challenge SORA’s application” inconsistent with “recent Michigan Supreme Court orders directing trial courts to consider a defendant’s request for removal from the sex offender registry as a part of his or her motion for relief from judgment.” However, it found the trial court reached the correct result, albeit for the wrong reason. It noted that “after Lymon, whether the 2021 SORA constitutes criminal punishment as to sexual offenders was still an open question.” But it noted that the Kiczenski panel “concluded that ‘the 2021 SORA does not constitute punishment as applied to CSC-I offenders,’ and, therefore, ‘there is no ex post facto violation’ when it is applied retroactively.” It then concluded that although “Kiczenski was limited to offenders with CSC-I convictions, defendant fails to establish that the circumstances of his CSC-IV conviction should lead to a different result. Indeed, [he] repeats arguments that were considered and rejected in Kiczenski, such as the lack of an individualized risk assessment rendering the 2021 SORA excessively punitive.” As such, he “has not met his burden to establish that his sentence is invalid in light of this Court’s recent precedent in Kiczenski, and he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief under MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b)(iv).” Affirmed.