SADO and MAACS attorneys to argue before Michigan Supreme Court

March 12, 2025, Hall of Justice, Lansing, MI
SADO’s Ali Wright and Jason Eggert, and MAACS roster attorney Jayne Carver will present argument before the Michigan Supreme Court on March 12, 2025. The cases to be argued present issues associated with the Sex Offender Registration Act, use of non-scorable convictions in applying the ten-year gap rule, and sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction of larceny by conversion. 

Ali Wright, People v Daryl William Martin 
MSC No. 166339 (COA No. 358580)

The Court directed the parties to address whether “(1) lifetime electronic monitoring, when imposed without an individualized assessment of the defendant’s recidivism risk and without providing a mechanism for removing the monitoring requirement, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under US Const, Am VIII or cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16, see generally People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021), but see People v Hallak, 310 Mich App 555, 577 (2015), rev’d in part on other grounds 499 Mich 879 (2016); (2) lifetime electronic monitoring constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment as applied in this case; and (3) lifetime electronic monitoring constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of US Const, Am IV or Const 1963, art 1, § 11, see State v Grady, 372 NC 509 (2019), and Park v State, 305 Ga 348 (2019), but see Hallak, 310 Mich App at 581." The case is set for argument on March 12 at 10:30 AM.

Ali Wright, People v Robert James Kardasz 
MSC No. 165008 (COA No. 358780)

The Court directed the parties to address whether the “(1) requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021 (the 2021 SORA), for the rest of his life constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 or cruel and unusual punishment under US Const, Am VIII; (2) lifetime electronic monitoring, when imposed without an individualized assessment of the defendant’s recidivism risk and without providing a mechanism for removing the monitoring requirement, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under US Const, Am VIII or cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16, see generally People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021), but see People v Hallak, 310 Mich App 555, 577 (2015), rev’d in part on other grounds 499 Mich 879 (2016); (3) lifetime electronic monitoring constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment as applied in this case; and (4) lifetime electronic monitoring constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of US Const, Am IV or Const 1963, art 1, § 11, see State v Grady, 372 NC 509 (2019), and Park v State, 305 Ga 348 (2019), but see Hallak, 310 Mich App at 581.” The case is set for argument on March 12 at 11:00 AM.

Jayne Carver, People v James Ray Boven 
MSC No. 165805 (COA No. 365295)

The Court directed the parties to address “whether the Emmet Circuit Court properly scored the defendant’s Prior Record Variables (PRVs).” The Court also directed that the “parties shall specifically include among the issues to be briefed whether People v Butler, 315 Mich App 546 (2016), correctly held that a prior conviction that is not otherwise scorable under the PRVs of the sentencing guidelines could nevertheless be considered in applying the ten-year gap rule, MCL 777.50.” The case is set for argument on March 12 at 1:00 PM.

Jason Eggert, People v Christopher Robert Clinton 
MSC No. 166210 (COA No. 361702)

The Court directed the parties to address: “whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for larceny by conversion under MCL 750.362, and specifically whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant converted the complainant’s property ‘to his own use,’ see People v Christenson, 412 Mich 81, 86 (1981), and that ‘at the time the property was embezzled, converted, or hidden, the defendant intended to defraud or cheat the owner permanently of that property.’ People v Mason, 247 Mich App 64, 72 (2001) (cleaned up).” The case is set for argument on March 12 at 1:30 PM.

Case briefs and related materials are available at this link.

The arguments can be watched at this link.