People v. Link, Docket No. 191991
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
| Writing for the Court | SAAD |
| Citation | 570 N.W.2d 297,225 Mich.App. 211 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel James LINK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 191991 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 1997 |
Page 297
v.
Daniel James LINK, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided Aug. 26, 1997, at 9:00 a.m.
Released for Publication Nov. 25, 1997.
Page 298
[225 Mich.App. 212] Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, David Gorcyca, Prosecuting Attorney, Joyce F. Todd, Chief, Appellate Division, Richard H. Browne, Interim Chief, Appellate Division, and Marilyn J. Day, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for People.
Eugene S. Hoiby and Associates by Eugene S. Hoiby and Thomas A. Beck, Livonia, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SAAD, P.J., and NEFF and JANSEN, JJ.
SAAD, Presiding Judge.
Nature of the Case
Defendant appeals as of right from the circuit court's June 1995 order denying his motion to expunge his 1989 conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520d(1)(a); M.S.A. § 28.788(4)(1)(a) (penetration of a child, aged thirteen to sixteen). After this appeal was filed and briefed, Michigan's expungement statute, M.C.L. § 780.621; M.S.A. § 28.1274(101), was amended, 1996 P.A. 573, effective [225 Mich.App. 213] April 1, 1997. Therefore, we must determine whether this amendment, which expressly precludes expungement of criminal sexual conduct convictions, operates retrospectively to preclude expungement of this 1989 criminal sexual conduct conviction. We decide that it does, and consequently, we affirm the circuit court's decision.
Background
On November 2, 1989, defendant was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct following his plea of nolo contendere. On December 15, 1994, defendant filed an application to set aside his conviction pursuant to M.C.L. § 780.621; M.S.A. § 28.1274(101). The prosecutor objected to expungement on various grounds, including the existence of other alleged criminal convictions. The circuit court ultimately denied defendant's application and his motion for reconsideration. 1 On January 12, 1996, defendant filed his claim of appeal in this Court.
It is undisputed that, until March 31, 1997, Michigan law, M.C.L. § 780.621; M.S.A. § 28.1274(101), permitted expungement of second- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions, where a five-year conviction-free period had elapsed before the filing of an [225 Mich.App. 214] application for expungement. It is similarly undisputed that 1996 P.A. 573, which amended M.C.L. § 780.621; M.S.A. § 28.1274(101), provides:
Sec 1....
* * * * * *
(2) A person shall not apply to have set aside, and a judge shall not set aside, a
Page 299
conviction for a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment or an attempt to commit a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment, a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of ... 750.520c, 750.520d [third-degree criminal sexual conduct], 750.520g of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or a conviction for a traffic offense.* * * * * *
Sec 2. This amendatory act shall take effect April 1, 1997. [Emphasis added.]
Plaintiff's appeal raises the question whether Michigan courts may expunge a third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction when the conviction and the filing of an application for expungement occurred before April 1, 1997 (the effective date of the statutory amendment).
Under Michigan law, a new or amended statute generally applies prospectively unless the Legislature has expressly or impliedly indicated its intention to give the statute retrospective effect. People v. Russo, 439 Mich. 584, 594, 487 N.W.2d 698 (1992). However, an exception to the general rule is recognized where a statute is remedial or procedural in nature. Id. "Statutes[225 Mich.App. 215] that operate in furtherance of a remedy already existing and that neither create new rights nor destroy rights already existing are held to operate retrospectively unless a different intention is clear." Id.
Here, we conclude that the expungement statute is remedial and that it does not create new or destroy existing rights. Under the terms of the expungement statute (both before and after the April 1, 1997, amendment), the setting aside of a conviction "is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lueth, Docket No. 226717.
...as amended, operates in furtherance of a remedy already existing and, therefore, it operates retrospectively. People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 214-215, 570 N.W.2d 297 (1997); People v. Grant, 455 Mich. 221, 230-231, 240, 565 N.W.2d 389 (1997). This is in accord with previous cases from th......
-
Seaton v. Wayne County Prosecutor, Docket No. 191685
...discovered in a statute and which restores what Congress had always believed the law to be. [Id. at 1183.]" See also People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 214-218, 570 N.W.2d 297 (1997); Preston v. Dep't of Treasury, 190 Mich.App. 491, 495-496, 476 N.W.2d 455 (1991). B 1994 PA 131 is also "rem......
-
Huggett v. Department of Natural Resources, Docket No. 195548
...bill analysis is not an official statement of legislative intent, it is a helpful tool in statutory interpretation. See People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 217, 570 N.W.2d 297 (1997). The fact that Michigan became the first state to receive authority to enforce and administer the federal Cle......
-
State v. Shade, Case No. 115,523
...(en banc) ("[The petitioner] has never had a substantive or vested right in expungement of his arrest record[.]"); People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 570 N.W.2d 297, 299 (1997) ("[W]e conclude that the expungement statute is remedial and that it does not create new or destroy existing right......
-
People v. Lueth, Docket No. 226717.
...as amended, operates in furtherance of a remedy already existing and, therefore, it operates retrospectively. People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 214-215, 570 N.W.2d 297 (1997); People v. Grant, 455 Mich. 221, 230-231, 240, 565 N.W.2d 389 (1997). This is in accord with previous cases from th......
-
Seaton v. Wayne County Prosecutor, Docket No. 191685
...discovered in a statute and which restores what Congress had always believed the law to be. [Id. at 1183.]" See also People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 214-218, 570 N.W.2d 297 (1997); Preston v. Dep't of Treasury, 190 Mich.App. 491, 495-496, 476 N.W.2d 455 (1991). B 1994 PA 131 is also "rem......
-
Huggett v. Department of Natural Resources, Docket No. 195548
...bill analysis is not an official statement of legislative intent, it is a helpful tool in statutory interpretation. See People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 217, 570 N.W.2d 297 (1997). The fact that Michigan became the first state to receive authority to enforce and administer the federal Cle......
-
State v. Shade, Case No. 115,523
...(en banc) ("[The petitioner] has never had a substantive or vested right in expungement of his arrest record[.]"); People v. Link, 225 Mich.App. 211, 570 N.W.2d 297, 299 (1997) ("[W]e conclude that the expungement statute is remedial and that it does not create new or destroy existing right......