People v Shaver
Key claim: The Michigan Supreme Court held that People v Betts applies retroactively on collateral review because it announced a new substantive rule prohibiting a category of punishment for defendants whose sex offenses predated the 2011 SORA amendments.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-05-29. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
PEOPLE v SHAVER
Docket No. 167736. Argued December 11, 2025 (Calendar No. 2). Decided May 29,
2026.
In 2004, defendant, Gary J. Shaver, Jr., was sentenced as a juvenile for three counts of
third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Under the version of Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration
Act (SORA) in effect at the time, defendant was required to register as a sex offender and notify
law enforcement of any change of address within 10 days. In August 2010, defendant was
convicted of failure to comply with SORA registration requirements. Approximately one year
later, the 2011 version of SORA went into effect, shortening the reporting period for address
changes from 10 days to 3 business days. In September 2015, defendant planned to move into a
new home, and he updated his address with local law enforcement. However, defendant was
unable to move into the new home as planned, and his registered address was incorrect for a total
of 19 days. Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to comply with the 2011 SORA’s registration
requirements, second offense, MCL 28.729(1)(b), as a fourth-offense habitual offender, and was
sentenced to six months in jail and five years of probation. Following his release from jail,
defendant pleaded guilty to a probation violation and was sentenced to a term of 40 months to 15
years’ imprisonment.
In 2021, the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021),
holding that the 2011 SORA in its entirety amounted to ex post facto punishment of registrants
whose registrable offenses were committed prior to the 2011 amendments. Defendant moved for
relief from judgment under MCR Subchapter 6.500, asking the Tuscola County Circuit Court to
apply Betts retroactively and to vacate his 2015 conviction of failure to register under the 2011
SORA. The trial court, Amy G. Gierhart, J., granted defendant’s motion without affording the
prosecution an opportunity to respond to defendant’s motion and denied the prosecution’s motion
for reconsideration. The prosecution appealed by leave granted, and the Court of Appeals,
CAVANAGH, P.J., and JANSEN and MALDONADO, JJ., reversed, holding that the trial court erred by
failing to give the prosecutor appropriate time to respond and by holding that Betts applies
retroactively. ___ Mich App ___ (September 5, 2024) (Docket No. 361488). Defendant sought
leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which granted the application. ___ Mich ___; 19 NW3d
135 (2025).
In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice CAVANAGH, the Supreme Court held:
Betts applies retroactively to defendants on collateral review under both federal and state
constitutional law because it announced a new substantive rule of law by prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants on the basis of their status or offense.
1. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that Betts announced a new rule of law. The
first question in analyzing retroactivity under the federal standard is whether the decision creates a new rule of law. As a general matter, judicial decisions that express new rules normally are not applied retroactively to other cases that have become final. Deciding whether a rule is “new” requires a court to determine whether a state court considering the defendant’s claim at the time their conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule was required by the federal Constitution. If a reasonable jurist would not have felt compelled by existing precedent, then the rule is new. In this case, Michigan courts prior to Betts rejected ex post facto challenges to SORA, reasoning that SORA registration requirements were a civil regulatory scheme rather than a punishment. Therefore, given the state of the law at the time defendant’s conviction became final, a reasonable Michigan jurist would not have felt compelled by existing precedent to grant defendant the relief he sought.
2. Although the Court of Appeals correctly determined that Betts announced a new rule of
law, the panel mistakenly concluded that the new rule was neither substantive nor procedural. Betts announced a new substantive rule of law under the federal standard. Procedural rules are not retroactively applicable, while substantive rules are retroactively applicable. Under federal law, rules that regulate only the manner of determining the defendant’s culpability are procedural. Substantive rules, on the other hand, are those forbidding criminal punishment of certain primary conduct or prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense. The rule announced in Betts was substantive because it proscribed a class of punishment—conviction of a violation of the 2011 SORA’s requirements—for a specific class of defendants, namely individuals convicted of sex offenses before 2011. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Betts did not constitute a new substantive rule because defendant would have been required to register his address under any iteration of SORA, but this conclusion was erroneous because the holding in Betts relied upon a review of the 2011 SORA in its entirety. Because the decision in Betts arose under both federal and state constitutional law, both federal and state tests for retroactive application would typically be evaluated. However, there was no need to reach an evaluation of retroactivity under the state test in this case because, while the Michigan Constitution may at times provide broader effect than federal jurisprudence affords, the Michigan Constitution may not provide fewer protections than those guaranteed under the federal Constitution. Accordingly, Betts also applies retroactively under state law.
Court of Appeals judgment reversed; case remanded to the trial court.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
OPINION Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas
Why this matters
The Michigan Supreme Court held that People v Betts applies retroactively on collateral review because it announced a new substantive rule prohibiting a category of punishment for defendants whose sex offenses predated the 2011 SORA amendments.