Sentencing; Inclusion of a student safety zone provision in defendant’s judgment of sentence (JOS); Sentencing conditions not authorized by statute; People v Lafey; 2021 amendment of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); Remedy; People v Thomas

Holding that the trial court plainly erred in including a student safety zone provision in defendant’s JOS, the court remanded for entry of an amended JOS removing the provision. He was convicted of kidnapping, CSC I, and felonious assault. His JOS included a provision prohibiting him from residing, working, or loitering “within a student safety zone defined as 1,000 feet of school property” unless he met a statutory exemption. He challenged this provision on appeal and requested resentencing. The prosecution agreed that it was impermissible but requested remand for entry of an amended JOS striking the condition, rather than resentencing. The court agreed with the parties that the trial court lacked the authority to include the provision as a condition of defendant’s sentence. While 2006 amendments to the SORA had created such exclusion zones, 2021 amendments removed the student safety zone provisions. Defendant was sentenced in 2024, years after the provisions were repealed. Thus, the trial court “lacked statutory authority to impose this sentencing condition” and its plain error in doing so affected his substantial rights. But the court concluded that his requested relief was not warranted here. It has “held that resentencing is not required if the circumstances demonstrate that the trial court’s misconception of the law would not have affected its discretionary determination” as to the length of a defendant’s sentence. The erroneous inclusion of the student safety zone condition “had no impact on the length of defendant’s sentence[.]”