People v. Rahilly

• Decision Date: 19 October 2001
• Docket Number: Docket No. 229762,Docket No. 229829.,Docket No. 227682
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adam Peter RAHILLY, Defendant-Appellee. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel Harns, Defendant-Appellee. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Michael Stanley, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

635 N.W.2d 227

247 Mich. App. 108

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adam Peter RAHILLY, Defendant-Appellee.

People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel Harns, Defendant-Appellee.

People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Michael Stanley, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 227682, 229762, 229829.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted May 8, 2001, at Lansing.

Decided July 31, 2001, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication October 19, 2001.

Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Stuart J. Dunnings, III, Prosecuting Attorney, and Guy L. Sweet, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Appeals Division Chief, for the people in Docket No. 227682; Brian Mackie, Prosecuting Attorney, and Lenore M. Ferber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people in Docket No. 229762; and Chester S. Sugierski, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the people in Docket No. 229829.

Peter Tazelaar, Newberry, for Adam P. Rahilly.

Douglas R. Mullkoff, Ann Arbor, for Daniel Harns.

Femminineo Attorneys, P.L.L.C. by Jacob M. Femminineo, Jr., Eastpointe, for Timothy M. Stanley.

Before HOLBROOK, Jr., P.J., and HOOD and GRIFFIN, JJ.

HOOD, J.

In these consolidated appeals, the prosecution appeals by leave granted from the trial courts' orders removing or exempting defendants from the registration provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), M.C.L. § 28.721 et seq. We reverse and remand.

In Docket No. 227682, defendant Adam Peter Rahilly pleaded guilty to a charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520e (contact). The complainant and defendant were college students. Defendant asked the complainant if he could kiss her, and she said no. Defendant touched the complainant's breast. The complainant fell asleep with defendant behind her. When she woke up, defendant was on top of the complainant and digitally penetrated her. Defendant stated that he had been drinking and did not recall the incident. Defendant was sentenced as a youthful trainee to twenty-four months' probation pursuant to the Youthful Trainee Act (YTA), M.C.L. § 762.11 et seq. Defendant registered in accordance with the provisions of the SORA. After he successfully completed the terms of his probation, defendant filed a motion to have his name removed from the SORA registry. The trial court granted the motion.

In Docket No. 239762, defendant Daniel Harns pleaded guilty to a charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520e, and indecent exposure, M.C.L. § 750.335a. Defendant exposed himself to several girls under the age of six years old at his parents' home where his mother ran a baby-sitting service. Additionally, defendant removed the clothing of a 4½ year old girl and touched her vagina. Following the completion of ten months on an electronic tether and three years on probation while assigned to the status of youthful trainee pursuant to the YTA, defendant moved for an exemption from registration under the SORA, and the trial court granted the motion.

In Docket No. 229829, defendant Timothy Michael Stanley pleaded guilty to a charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520e and aggravated assault, M.C.L. § 750.81a. Defendant grabbed the complainant's hand and forced it onto his genitals, then assaulted the complainant's boyfriend. Defendant was sentenced to six months' probation and assigned to the status of youthful trainee pursuant to the YTA. The trial court granted defendant's motion to exempt him from registration under the SORA. We granted the prosecution's applications for leave to appeal in each case and consolidated the appeals.

The prosecution argues that there is no provision for removal from the SORA registry on the basis of participation in and completion of the requirements of the YTA. We agree. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that we review de novo. People v. Nimeth, 236 Mich.App. 616, 620, 601 N.W.2d 393 (1999). When resolving disputed interpretations of statutory language, it is the function of the reviewing court to effectuate the legislative intent. People v. Valentin, 457 Mich. 1, 5, 577 N.W.2d 73 (1998). When the language of the statute is clear, the Legislature intended the meaning plainly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. Id. We presume that every word has some meaning, and we must avoid any construction that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory. People v. Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich. 278, 285, 597 N.W.2d 1 (1999). The Legislature is presumed to be aware of and legislate in harmony with existing laws when enacting new laws. Walen v. Dep't of Corrections, 443 Mich. 240, 248, 505 N.W.2d 519 (1993). The omission of a provision from one part of a statute that is included in another part of a statute must be construed as intentional. That is, we "cannot assume that the Legislature inadvertently omitted from one statute the language that it placed in another statute, and then, on the basis of that assumption, apply what is not there." Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 442 Mich. 201, 210, 501 N.W.2d 76 (1993). Two statutes that relate to the same subject or share a common purpose are in pari materia and must be read together. People v. Webb, 458 Mich. 265, 274, 580 N.W.2d 884 (1998). The goal of the in pari materia rule is to give effect to the legislative purpose found in the harmonious statutes. Id. When two statuteslend themselves to a construction that avoids conflict, that construction should control. Id.

The YTA provides a mechanism for individuals who commit certain crimes between the time of their seventeenth and twenty-first birthdays to be excused from having a criminal record. People v. Bobek, 217 Mich.App. 524, 529, 553 N.W.2d 18 (1996), citing People v. Dolgorukov, 191 Mich.App. 38, 39, 477 N.W.2d 118 (1991). Pursuant to M.C.L. § 762.11, an individual within the restricted age range may plead guilty of a specified offense, and the court having jurisdiction may assign the individual to the status of youthful trainee. Once having assigned the individual to the status of youthful trainee, the court may commit the individual to custodial supervision for not more than three years in a specially designated Department of Corrections facility, place the individual on probation for not more than three years, or commit the individual to the county jail for not more than one year. M.C.L. 762.13. Thus, the individual assigned to youthful trainee status is nonetheless punished for the crime committed. The individual assigned to youthful trainee status derives a benefit from the status if he successfully completes the punishment imposed. M.C.L. 762.14 provides in relevant part:

(1) If consideration of an individual as a youthful trainee is not terminated and the status of youthful trainee is not revoked as provided in section 12 of this chapter [MCL 762.12], upon final release of the individual from the status as youthful trainee, the court shall discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings.

(2) An assignment of an individual to the status of youthful trainee as provided in this chapter is not a conviction for a crime and, except as provided in subsection (3), the individual assigned to the status of youthful trainee shall not suffer a civil disability or loss of right or privilege following his or her release from that status because of his or her assignment as a youthful trainee.

* * *

(4) Unless the court enters a judgment of conviction against the individual for the criminal offense under section 12 of this chapter, all proceedings regarding the disposition of the criminal charge and the individual's assignment as youthful trainee shall be closed to public inspection, but shall be open to the courts of this state, the department of corrections, the department of social services, and law enforcement personnel for use only in the performance of their duties.

In 1994, our Legislature enacted the SORA that required convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies. People v. Pennington, 240 Mich. App. 188, 191, 610 N.W.2d 608 (2000). In 1999, the SORA was amended. It continued to provide a database for law enforcement officers to track the whereabouts of sexual offenders. However, it expanded the notification provisions to allow public access to information regarding sex offenders. Id.; M.C.L. 28.728(2). Specifically, the public could either utilize the SORA database to identify registered sex offenders by zip code, which search reveals the name of the offender, and the offender's address, physical description, and the offense involved, or search the SORA database by name of the offender. Id.

The Legislature amended the YTA to account for the creation of the SORA. Specifically, M.C.L. § 762.14(3) provides:

An individual assigned to youthful trainee status for a listed offense enumerated in section 2 of the sex offenders registration act is required to comply with the requirements of that act.

Additionally, while M.C.L. § 762.14(2) provides that the assignment of an individual to youthful trainee status does not result in a conviction, for purposes of the SORA, assignment to youthful trainee status, in fact, constitutes a conviction. M.C.L. 28.722(a)(ii) defines convicted as "[b]eing assigned to youthful trainee status under sections 11 to 15 of chapter II of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, M.C.L. § 762.12 to 762.15." In fact, M.C.L. § 28.724(5) provides that the sentencing court may not enter an order of disposition or assign an individual to youthful trainee status until it determines that the individual is registered with the local law enforcement or sheriff's department, or the Department of State Police. Once registered, the individual must comply with the SORA for a period of twenty-five years following the person's date of the initial registration or for ten years...