Expungement of a juvenile record following a conviction in adult criminal court was the question in People v. Smith 470 NW2d 70 (“People v. Smith,” n.d.). Ricky Franklin Smith plead guilty in adult criminal court of breaking and entering into a building with the intent to commit larceny and of being a habitual offender (4th offense). Smith was sentenced to 3.5-10 years in prison for the crime, only to have the sentence later vacated, as he was deemed a habitual offender. Smith was then sentenced 6-30 years because of the habitual offender status, in part due to his expunged juvenile record being brought about. At the time, Smith’s lengthy juvenile record had been expunged in accordance with Michigan Court Rules (MCR) 5.913. Smith appealed his sentence based on the grounds that his juvenile record was expunged and should not have been a part of the sentencing report in this case.
…show more content…
The Court of Appeals relied solely upon People v. Price, 431 NW2d 524 (1988) in making their decision (“People v. Smith,” n.d.). Sentencing laws in Michigan had also changed after Smith’s plea agreement from MCR 5.913 to MCR 5.925(E), allowing specific records into a sentencing report. The Court reasoned that MCR 5.913 remedied un-expunged juvenile records that “may create a lifelong handicap” (“People v. Smith,” n.d., para.
The Court of Appeals relied solely upon People v. Price, 431 NW2d 524 (1988) in making their decision (“People v. Smith,” n.d.). Sentencing laws in Michigan had also changed after Smith’s plea agreement from MCR 5.913 to MCR 5.925(E), allowing specific records into a sentencing report. The Court reasoned that MCR 5.913 remedied un-expunged juvenile records that “may create a lifelong handicap” (“People v. Smith,” n.d., para.