Michigan Appeals Court Decision on Cannabis Use and Probation

Michigan Appeals Court Decision on Cannabis Use and Probation

At Komorn Law, we are dedicated to protecting the rights of our clients and staying at the forefront of legal developments.

Our firm’s success in the landmark case of People v. Thue set a significant precedent for medical marijuana patients on probation. Recently, another pivotal case, People v. Lopez-Hernandez, was decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which further clarifies the boundaries of marijuana use under probation conditions. 

Case Summary: People v. Lopez-Hernandez

In People v Lopez-Hernandez, the defendant, Marco A. Lopez-Hernandez, appealed his probation violation based on the argument that his use of recreational marijuana, compliant with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), should not be penalized.

Lopez-Hernandez had been placed on probation after pleading guilty to operating a vehicle while visibly impaired by marijuana. As a condition of his probation, he was prohibited from using marijuana. When he tested positive for marijuana use, he was found in violation of his probation.

Court’s Decision

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to uphold the probation violation. The court distinguished this case from the Thue decision by noting the context of Lopez-Hernandez’s initial offense, which involved operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana—a direct violation of both state law and the terms of his probation.

The court emphasized that while the MRTMA decriminalizes the use of marijuana by adults, it does not protect individuals who violate other laws, such as operating a vehicle while impaired.

Therefore, the condition of probation prohibiting marijuana use was deemed lawful and rationally related to the defendant’s rehabilitation.

Implications for Marijuana Users on Probation

This ruling underscores the critical distinction between medical and recreational marijuana use under Michigan law, particularly in the context of probation conditions.

Probation Conditions and Marijuana Use:

Under the MRTMA, adults over 21 years old are allowed to use marijuana recreationally. However, this does not extend to situations where the use of marijuana violates other laws or probation conditions.

Conditions prohibiting marijuana use can still be imposed on probationers if they are rationally related to the offense and the individual’s rehabilitation.

Impact of Prior Offenses:
Individuals convicted of marijuana-related offenses, especially those involving impaired driving, can expect stricter probation conditions related to marijuana use.

This decision clarifies that using marijuana recreationally in violation of the law (e.g., driving under the influence) will not be protected under the MRTMA.

Distinction from Thue Case:
The Thue case protected medical marijuana patients from probation conditions that prohibited compliant use of medical marijuana.

The Lopez-Hernandez decision makes it clear that similar protections do not necessarily apply to recreational use, especially when the underlying offense involves marijuana-related impairment.

The People v. Lopez-Hernandez decision highlights the ongoing evolution of marijuana law in Michigan and the importance of understanding how it intersects with probation conditions.

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you're ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

Probation and Sentencing Law Changes in Michigan

Probation and Sentencing Law Changes in Michigan

Probation and Sentencing Law Changes in Michigan (2021)

Recently, Michigan implemented significant reforms in their criminal justice system, impacting both misdemeanor and felony sentencing as well as probation.

If you or someone you care about is currently on probation or has recently faced criminal charges, it is crucial to seek guidance from an experienced criminal defense attorney. Call our office (248) 357-2550

Rebuttable Presumption

Michigan law now provides a rebuttable presumption that someone convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, must be sentenced to a fine, community service, or other nonjail or non-probation sentence.

A court may depart from this presumption if the court finds there are reasonable grounds for the departure and the court states on the record the grounds for that departure. In other words, the court is now prohibited by law from sentencing someone convicted of a non-serious misdemeanor to probation unless the court explains on the record at sentencing why it is sentencing that person to probation and that reason is considered “reasonable.”

A “serious misdemeanor” includes assault and battery, domestic violence, aggravated domestic violence, assault with serious injury, breaking and entering, illegal entry, child abuse (4th degree), contributing to neglect or delinquency of a minor, prohibited communication through the internet or computer, intentional firearm aiming without malice, discharge of a firearm intentionally aimed at a person, discharge of an intentionally aimed firearm resulting in injury, indecent exposure, stalking, worker injury in a work zone, leaving the scene of an accident, drunk or drugged driving (OWI or OWVI) involving property damage or physical injury/death to another individual (including while operating a watercraft or boat), and selling alcohol to someone under 21 years old.

The new law alters the sentencing period for individuals convicted of misdemeanors and felonies. In general, most felonies now carry a maximum probation term of 3 years, with the possibility of extensions up to 5 years. However, there are exceptions for felony stalking and certain sex offenses, which may still result in lifetime probation.

It is crucial that the conditions of probation are carefully tailored to address the assessed risks and needs of the probationer, as well as the needs of any victims involved. Courts are now obligated to specify the “rehabilitation goals” for each defendant during sentencing.

The conditions of probation must be customized to the individual, address their assessed risks and needs, aim to reduce recidivism, and address the harm caused to victims, their safety concerns, and any requests for protective measures or restitution. Courts also have the authority to make appropriate adjustments to the probation conditions, always considering the specific rehabilitation goals.

Early Discharge of Probation

If you have completed over half of your probation term and met all required programming without any violations in the past three months, you may be eligible for early discharge from probation.

You can notify the probation department or file a Motion for Early Discharge of Probation to request early discharge, and the court may consider it at its discretion. Inability to pay fines or fees does not make you ineligible for early discharge, but the court must consider any outstanding restitution and its impact on the victim.

The court will review your behavior on probation to determine if early discharge is warranted. They may grant early discharge without a hearing, but if they find that it is not warranted, they will conduct a hearing for you to present your case.

Certain crimes are not eligible for early discharge from probation. If your probation officer does not notify the court of your eligibility, contact a criminal defense attorney. Thorough preparation for your early discharge hearing is crucial, and an experienced attorney can guide you through the process.

The Court Should Not Impose a Jail Term or Place the Person on Probation

When sentencing an individual to a misdemeanor, there is a rebuttable presumption that the court should not impose a jail term or placed the person on probation. MCL 769.5(3).

Except “serious misdemeanors” as defined by MCL 780.811(1)(a).

A serious misdemeanor includes an original offense charged as a “crime” but pleaded down. MCL 780.811(1)(a)(xviii).

Crime is defined as a felony-incarceration greater than 1 year. MCL 789.752(1)(b).

Nonjail/Nonprobationary Sentence

Q: MCL 769.5(3) provides that “[t]here is a rebuttable presumption that the court shall sentence an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, other than a serious misdemeanor, 5 with a fine, community service, or other nonjail or nonprobation sentence.”

The statue was effective March 24, 2021. Is it retroactive?


A: MCL 769.5(3) does not expressly indicate that it is retroactive. Therefore, the court will need to determine whether this statute applies to offenses committed on or after March 24, 2021, or rather to those sentenced on or after March 24, 2021.


Q: What does a nonprobation sentence look like?

A: A nonprobation sentence is any lawful sentence that does not include an order of probation. As contemplated in MCL 769.5(3), this may include a fine, community service, other nonjail, etc. If the court orders a defendant to complete certain activities as part of a nonprobation sentence, the court should determine how it will monitor compliance.

More Posts

Victory in Ann Arbor Court for Medical Marijuana Patient on Probation

Victory in Ann Arbor Court for Medical Marijuana Patient on Probation

Komorn Law is proud to report a significant and relevant case victory directly related to our recent Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion win in the People v. Thue case where as a registered medical marijuana patient cannot be penalized for consuming medical marihuana while on probation.

The Client Issue

Our client was charged with violating his probation for allegedly testing positive for “Marihuana” on 2 occasions. The allegations were based upon a urine test which both indicated the metabolite of Delta-9 THC, Carboxy -11/ COOH-11.

Our client was certified as a medical marihuana patient after the date of the first alleged violation but before the second alleged violation. We had filed several motions, including but not limited to, a “Motion to allow for the Medical Use of Marihauana While on Probation”.

A probation violation hearing began on January 14, 2021, whereby testimony was taken, from the probation officer, and our expert.

Our position and the evidence we presented established that the urine samples indicating the metabolite Carboxy-11 COOH-11, were from a lawful source. The matter was adjourned, mid hearing.

Return to Court

On February 22, 2021 - when we appeared before the court again in person, we were happy to hear the court had read and reviewed the People v,.Thue case, commented on our involvement, and was prepared to rule on the allegations regarding the 2 positive urine tests.

Because of the People v,Thue case our previous position regarding “lawful THC” became moot.

In summary the court found that because of the current valid medical marihuana patient status of my client, he could not be revoked from probation, for either violation. That is to say, that the allegation of his use prior to becoming a registered medical marihuana patient (and the allegation after he became a certified patient) were dismissed.

“Counsel, that is my interpretation of the case” the Court said. To which I replied, I agree that is the correct interpretation. 

The Court dismissed both of the violation, and amended the sentencing order to allow for the medical use of cannabis while on bond.

Huge shout out to our client for his courage in wanting to assert his rights and challenge the allegations, the legal defense team at Komorn Law PLLC, and Dr. Land for his expertise in science and assistance in presenting our case.

MK

Patients can use medical marijuana while on probation in Michigan, appeals court rules

Patients can use medical marijuana while on probation in Michigan, appeals court rules

AP) — Judges can't prevent people from using medical marijuana while on probation for a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals said.

Anyone holding a state-issued medical marijuana card is immune to possible penalties, the appeals court said, 3-0.

The court, however, cautioned that the decision does not apply to the recreational use of marijuana, which was approved by voters in 2018.

Michael Thue was barred from using medical marijuana while on probation for a year in a road rage incident in the Traverse City area. A District Court judge said the marijuana ban was the policy of Circuit Court judges in Grand Traverse County.

Circuit Judge Thomas Power declined to hear an appeal.

The appeals court said Power made the wrong call, based on a line of decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court and the language of the medical marijuana law.

The law "preempts or supersedes ordinances and statutes that conflict" with it, said judges Mark Cavanagh, Deborah Servitto and Thomas Cameron.

The Attorney

Medical marijuana patients have had their doctor recommended use of cannabis while on probation in limbo for a long time.

Lead trial attorney and advocate for marijuana law reform Michael Komorn and his dedicated team of attorneys (specifically Ally McCormick) secured a victory in the Michigan Court of Appeals for Medical Marijuana Patients

As many battles for marijuana patientscaregivers and business clients represented by the Komorn Law Firm loom in the background – a decision has been made to set the tone for future cases involving those on probation.

News Articles

Patients can use medical marijuana while on probation in Michigan, appeals court rules

Michigan judges can’t stop medical marijuana use by probationers

Registered patients previously barred from using medical marijuana while on probation may now light up, the state Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

“This opinion says the law is the law,” said Komorm, who represented the appellant in the case, “and we’re going to make the ruling that the Medical Marijuana Act and the card associated with the patient protect them from … penalty of any kind.”

It’s taken 13 years, but Michigan courts are finally fully recognizing the rights instilled by the 2008 voter-passed Medical Marijuana Act, said Farmington Hills-based defense attorney.

In Komorn’s opinion, although the ruling doesn’t address the issue, the precedent should also apply to parolees or defendants on bond with release conditions that prohibit legal medical marijuana use.

The unanimous ruling issued in writing Thursday by Court of Appeals judges Mark J. Kavanaugh, Deborah A. Servitto and Thomas C. Cameron determined Medical marijuana law “supersedes” contradicting laws empowering judges to limit a wide array legal activity, such as alcohol consumption.

And that’s because of “specific language” in the ballot initiative voters passed prohibits any penalty for compliant use of medical marijuana, Komorn said. Despite that, Komorn said judges frequently, especially in Grand Traverse County where the case arose, impose marijuana probation restrictions on registered patients.

Read the Rest of the Article Here on MLive

More News

WXYZ

Join In

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

BMMR cannabis corruption. prosecutors dispensary Driving DUI educational FAQs forfeiture gun rights hemp komornlaw lara law enforcement abuse laws Legalization marijuana Medical Marijuana Michigan Michigan Court of Appeals michigan laws michigan news michigan supreme court MMFLA news politics science usa news us supreme court Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.