Background
Following a bench trial, Deshawn Townsend was convicted of kidnapping, two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and felonious assault. His September 2024 judgment of sentence provided that he could not reside, work, or loiter within 1,000 feet of school property unless he qualified for a statutory exemption.
Townsend did not object when the condition was imposed, but challenged it on appeal and sought resentencing. The prosecution agreed that the condition was impermissible, while arguing that the proper remedy was an amended judgment striking the condition rather than a new sentencing hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court plainly erred by imposing the student safety zone restriction. Courts may impose criminal penalties and sentencing conditions only as authorized by the Legislature, and the 1,000-foot school exclusion provisions formerly contained in Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act had been removed in 2021—years before Townsend was sentenced.
The unauthorized condition affected Townsend’s substantial rights because it subjected him to a restriction that the trial court had no lawful authority to impose. The court nevertheless rejected his request for resentencing because the unlawful condition did not affect the length of his sentence. It remanded solely for entry of an amended judgment of sentence removing the student safety zone provision and did not retain jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan trial court may not impose a sentencing condition unless the Legislature has authorized it.
- The school exclusion-zone provisions that barred certain registrants from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school were removed from SORA in 2021.
- An unauthorized condition can constitute reversible plain error even without a sentencing objection, but resentencing is unnecessary when removing the condition fully remedies the error and the mistake did not affect the sentence’s length.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that sentencing forms and probation recommendations cannot preserve restrictions after their statutory basis has been repealed. Courts and practitioners should verify that every condition appearing in a judgment of sentence remains supported by current law.
It also distinguishes between errors requiring a new sentencing hearing and discrete defects that can be corrected through an amended judgment. Where an unlawful condition did not influence the court’s discretionary decision about sentence length, striking that condition may provide the complete remedy.