Presentation:
Supplemental Materials
The following supplemental materials may also help in understanding these issues.
Immigration Issues:
- Model Motion to Appoint Immigration Counsel;
- Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Quick Chart of Immigration Consequences. This is geared for the California practitioner but still helpful;
- Tooby’s Guide to CriminalImmigration Law. A 200 page free publication by immigration attorney Norton Tooby. Highly recommended;
- Padilla v Kentucky 139 S Ct 1473 (2010). The US Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v Kentucky holding that a practitioner has to inform the Defendant of the immigration of the immigration consequences of the plea;
- People v Gomez, 295 Mich. App. 411 (2012). Padilla is not retroactive.
Michigan Sex Offender Registration:
- Michigan Sex Offender Registry;
- Michigan Sex Offender Registry FAQs;
- Summary of Sex Offender Registry Legislation (from Michigan State Police);
- People v Fonville, 291 Mich 363, 804 NW2d 878 (2011) extending Padilla to sex offender registration consequences;
- People v Sollis, 316 Mich.App. 174, 891 NW2d 255 (2016) declaring portions of Michigan’s sex offender registration law unconstitutional as it pertains to “routinely used” vehicles and email addresses, etc;
- People v Hess, Court of Appeals No. 327890. Judge Shapiro questions whether SORA may now be punishment;
- People v Comer, Supreme Court No. 152713. Lifetime electronic monitoring is required for all CSC I defendants not serving life sentences;
- People v Spencer, 493 Mich 939, 829 NW2d 592 (2103). An independent civil action can be filed challenging placement on the registry;
- People v DiPiazza. A case finding the inclusion of the Defendant on the registry cruel or unusual under the Michigan Constitution;
- People v Temelkoski, Published Court of Appeals case narrowing DiPiazza to its facts;
Does v Snyder:
- ACLU of Michigan. What you Need to Know About Doe(s) v Snyder;
- M. Aukerman, Sex Offender Registration After Does v Snyder, October 2016;
- Sixth Circuit Opinion in Does v Snyder;