COA 373287 PEOPLE OF MI V DESHAWN TOWNSEND Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 9/15/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
September 15, 2026
11:14 AM
v No. 373287
Wayne Circuit Court
DESHAWN TOWNSEND, LC No. 23-002001-01-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LETICA, P.J., and RICK and GARRETT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of one count of kidnapping,
MCL 750.349, two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b
(multiple variables), and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon (felonious assault). The
facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not material to this appeal. As part of his sentence,
the trial court ordered that defendant “[m]ust not reside, work, or loiter within a student safety
zone defined as 1,000 feet of school property (developmental kindergarten through 12th grade
school) unless you meet a statutory exemption.”1 Defendant challenges inclusion of the student
safety zone provision in this appeal by right and requests resentencing. On appeal, the prosecution
agrees that this condition was impermissible, but requests that this Court remand to the trial court
for entry of an amended judgment of sentence striking this condition, which is contained in the
third sentence of Item 12 of defendant’s current judgment of sentence. We agree with the parties
that the trial court lacked authority to include the student safety zone provision as a condition of
defendant’s sentence, and we remand to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment of
sentence removing it.
I. ISSUE PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendant did not preserve this issue for review by objecting at sentencing when the court
imposed the condition. People v Bowling, 299 Mich App 552, 557; 830 NW2d 800 (2013). On
1 The probation department recommended this as “Condition 01.6.”

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
appeal, a defendant is entitled to plain error review of an unpreserved sentencing issue. People v
Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 393; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). “To avoid forfeiture under the plain error
rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear
or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750,
763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). “The third requirement generally requires a showing of prejudice,”
which exists if the error affected the outcome. Id. Whether to grant appellate relief is within the
reviewing court’s discretion, and “[r]eversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error
resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error seriously affect[ed]
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s
innocence.” Id. at 763-764 (quotation marks and citation omitted; second alteration in original).
II. DISCUSSION
“[T]he ultimate authority to provide for penalties for criminal offenses is constitutionally
vested in the Legislature.” People v Hegwood, 465 Mich 432, 436; 636 NW2d 127 (2001). Thus,
while trial courts are tasked with imposing sentences following a criminal conviction, the courts
may do so “only within the limits set by the Legislature.” Id. at 436-437. Trial courts may not
impose sentencing conditions not authorized by statute. See People v Lafey, ___ Mich App at ___,
___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 361936); slip op at 11-12 (concluding that sentencing
condition drastically restricting the defendant’s contact with individuals outside the prison setting
was not authorized by statute).
The Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., went into effect in
October 1995. People v Betts, 507 Mich 527, 533 & n 1; 968 NW2d 497 (2021). In 2006,
amendments creating “exclusion zones” became effective, prohibiting registrants from living,
working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school. Id. at 535. In 2021, SORA was significantly
amended, and the student safety zone provisions were removed. See People v Lymon, 515 Mich
145, 154; 29 NW3d 58 (2024); People v Kiczenski, ___ Mich App___, ___; ___ NW3d___ (2024)
(Docket No. 364957); slip op at 11.
Defendant was sentenced in September 2024, years after the student safety zone provisions
were repealed. The trial court therefore lacked statutory authority to impose this sentencing
condition and it plainly erred. The trial court’s error also affected defendant’s substantial rights
because it imposed a condition on defendant without lawful authority. See Lafey, ___ Mich App
at ___; slip op at 11-13 (granting appellate relief in relation to unlawful sentencing condition,
despite failure to preserve claim of error).
Defendant argues that the trial court’s error requires resentencing; however, he provides
no authority to support that resentencing, rather than amending the judgment of sentence, is
necessary. See People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 195; 774 NW2d 714 (2009) (“An appellant
may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the
basis for his claims, nor may he give only cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting
authority.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). More importantly, defendant’s requested
relief is not warranted in these circumstances. Admittedly, “[t]he traditional remedy employed by
this Court for an invalid sentence imposed on the basis of a misconception of the law is
resentencing.” People v Thomas, 223 Mich App 9, 12; 566 NW2d 13 (1997). But this Court has
also held that resentencing is not required if the circumstances demonstrate that the trial court’s

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
misconception of the law would not have affected its discretionary determination regarding the
length of the defendant’s sentence. Id. at 13, citing People v Kaczorowski, 190 Mich App 165,
174; 475 NW2d 861 (1991). Here, the trial court’s erroneous inclusion of the student safety zone
condition after the statutory authority for that condition was repealed had no impact on the length
of defendant’s sentence, so the appropriate remedy is to remand for entry of an order removing the
student safety zone condition from defendant’s judgment of sentence. See Lafey, ___ Mich App
at ___; slip op at 13 (remanding for removal of unlawful sentencing condition).
Remanded to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment of sentence that removes the
student safety zone provision. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Anica Letica
/s/ Michelle M. Rick
/s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett

-- 3 of 3 --