Background
On August 3, 2022, Sherrod Keith-Young sexually assaulted GS, a 16-year-old left in his girlfriend’s home overnight. Keith-Young made repeated unwanted advances and, after inducing GS to lie down in a bedroom, forcibly performed oral and digital sex on her despite her repeated verbal and physical resistance. GS subsequently underwent a sexual assault nurse examination; no physical injuries were observed, but she reported nausea, anxiety, difficulty breathing, and memory loss, and was prescribed Zofran for persistent nausea. Keith-Young was charged with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct under MCL 750.520d(1)(b) (force or coercion).
Before trial, the prosecutor offered to dismiss one count and cap Keith-Young’s sentence at the middle of guidelines (72–120 months) if he pleaded to a single count. The trial court placed the offer on the record and advised Keith-Young that his guidelines if convicted at trial would be approximately 78–162 months with the possibility of consecutive sentences. Keith-Young declined the plea and proceeded to trial, where a jury convicted him on both counts. He was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to 168–270 months on each count and ordered to register as a sex offender for life under Michigan’s 2021 Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA).
Keith-Young moved in the trial court to vacate his convictions and reopen the plea agreement, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion, finding neither deficient performance nor prejudice. A motion to remand for a Ginther hearing was also denied by the Court of Appeals. Keith-Young appealed, raising three issues: ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to correct pre-trial guideline estimates, an erroneous 10-point score for Offense Variable (OV) 3, and the unconstitutionality of SORA’s lifetime registration requirement.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all three issues. On ineffective assistance, the court held that defense counsel’s failure to correct the prosecution’s and trial court’s pre-trial sentencing guideline estimates did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court emphasized that both the prosecutor and the trial court used qualified language—”idea,” “expect,” and “potentially”—making clear the figures were estimates rather than guarantees. Keith-Young also declined the trial court’s offer to consult with counsel before deciding to proceed to trial, and his unambiguous desire to go to trial further undermined any claim of prejudice from counsel’s silence.
On OV 3, the court reviewed for plain error because the issue was not preserved below. It concluded the trial court did not plainly err in assessing 10 points for bodily injury requiring medical treatment. GS’s persistent nausea qualified as a “bodily injury” under the broad definition in People v Lampe, and her prescription of Zofran satisfied the “requiring medical treatment” standard from People v Cathey, which focuses on the necessity of treatment rather than whether treatment was actually obtained.
On the SORA challenge, the court applied the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v Kardasz (2025), which upheld lifetime SORA registration for Tier III offenders against both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges under Michigan’s “cruel or unusual punishment” clause. Because Keith-Young’s third-degree CSC conviction likewise made him a Tier III offender under MCL 28.722, the court found his registration requirement constitutional. His as-applied challenge was separately deemed abandoned for failure to brief it.
Key Takeaways
- Counsel’s failure to correct pre-trial sentencing estimates is not ineffective assistance where the court and prosecutor clearly communicated the figures were estimates, and the defendant declined an opportunity to consult with counsel before choosing to go to trial.
- Under OV 3, nausea sufficiently persistent to require a prescription medication constitutes “bodily injury requiring medical treatment,” even in the absence of observable physical trauma.
- Michigan’s 2021 SORA lifetime registration requirement is constitutional as applied to Tier III offenders, consistent with the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding in People v Kardasz (2025).
- An as-applied constitutional challenge to SORA is abandoned on appeal where the defendant merely announces the intent to raise it without developing an argument or citing supporting authority.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar defendants face when claiming ineffective assistance based on a lawyer’s silence during plea colloquies. So long as the record shows that guideline figures were presented as estimates and the defendant had the opportunity—and declined—to seek clarification from counsel, courts are unlikely to find constitutionally deficient performance. Defense practitioners should ensure their clients receive explicit, documented advice about guideline calculations before any plea deadline.
The OV 3 ruling also has practical significance: it confirms that psychosomatic and physiological responses to sexual trauma—nausea severe enough to require prescription treatment—can support a 10-point score even when a forensic examination reveals no physical injury. Combined with the court’s straightforward application of Kardasz to uphold lifetime SORA registration for third-degree CSC convictions, this opinion signals that Michigan courts will broadly follow the Supreme Court’s recent SORA framework without significant further development at the intermediate appellate level.