Sentence validity; Reliance on inaccurate information or a misconception of law; People v Jackson; Sex offender registration; The Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); Scope of remand; People v Lampe; Striking a SORA requirement from the judgment without resentencing; Whether defendant was entitled to resentencing as an equitable remedy; Jail credit; People v Smith

The court held that under the circumstances, “it would have been improper for the trial court to grant relief beyond the removal of defendant from the SORA registry” as directed by the court. There was no “need for a plenary resentencing proceeding” and he was not entitled to resentencing as an equitable remedy because an adequate legal remedy existed. Finally, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying his request for jail credit for time spent on electronic monitoring and house arrest while on appellate bond. He appealed from the amended judgment of sentence that reflected the removal of the requirement that he register under the SORA. He argued that resentencing was required on the basis his sentences were “invalid because they were predicated on inaccurate information—specifically, an alleged legal misconception that he was required to register as a sex offender[.]” But the court found that they “were not predicated on a misconception of law; rather, they were imposed in accordance with the law as it existed at the time of sentencing.” The court held in a prior appeal “that requiring defendant to register as a sex offender for 15 years constituted cruel or unusual punishment because it was unjustifiably disproportionate to the offense.” As a result, it “remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter an order removing [him] from the sex offender registry.” The Michigan Supreme Court subsequently “likewise concluded that defendant and other offenders whose crimes lacked a sexual component were entitled to removal from the registry. In so ruling, [it] emphasized that its holding was both narrow and workable, distinguishing nonsexual offenders entitled to removal from those who must remain on the registry.” The court also rejected his assertion that “striking the SORA requirement from the judgment without resentencing” contravened the Supreme Court’s opinion. Multiple other appellate decisions and Supreme Court orders supported “the conclusion that removal from SORA, without complete resentencing, is the appropriate remedy under the circumstances presented here.” Affirmed.