150643 - People v Boban Temelkoski
Attorney Information
|
The
People of the State of Michigan,
|
|
Julie A. Powell
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Wayne – Chylinski, J.)
|
Miriam Aukerman
|
|
Boban Temelkoski,
|
|
David Herskovic
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
In 1993, the 19-year-old defendant committed
second-degree criminal sexual conduct. He pled guilty to the offense under the
Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), which allows a young offender to be placed
on probation for a number of years, and if probation is successfully completed,
to avoid a felony conviction. At the time, “success” also guaranteed that a
trainee would suffer no civil disability because of HYTA status and the record
of criminal proceedings would be closed to the public. While the defendant was
still on probation in 1995, the Legislature enacted the Sex Offenders
Registration Act (SORA), which required a defendant convicted of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct to register with the police for 25 years. That
registration later became public. The Legislature subsequently imposed
additional requirements on registered offenders and, in 2011, required lifetime
registration for certain offenders, including the defendant. The defendant
seeks removal from the registry, arguing that registration has become cruel and
unusual punishment, and that it is an ex post facto law. The trial court
granted the defendant’s motion. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme
Court granted leave to appeal in 2015, and heard oral argument in December
2016. In May 2017, in light of new developments, this Court voted to hear reargument
to address: (1) whether this case should be held in abeyance pending final
action by the United States Supreme Court in Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696 (CA 6, 2016); (2) whether a
criminal defendant is denied due process of law if a statute offers a benefit
in exchange for pleading guilty, the defendant’s plea is induced by the
expectation of that benefit, but the benefit is vitiated in whole or in part;
and (3) whether the Wayne Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the defendant’s SORA
claim.