Ruling on motion could decide case against sex offender Matthew Freeman
The case against a Pittsfield Township man accused of living near a school after being convicted of having sex with his underage high school girlfriend could boil down to a judge’s ruling on a motion filed last week.
On Feb. 5, attorney David Goldstein filed a “motion to correct the record” that says a paperwork error was made during the 2003 conviction of his client, Matthew Freeman. Circuit Court Judge Donald Shelton is scheduled to hear that motion March 2, Goldstein said today in 14A-1 District Court.
Matthew Freeman is awaiting a ruling on a court motion filed by his attorney.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
“If Judge Shelton grants our motion, this case will have to be dismissed," Goldstein told Judge J. Cedric Simpson.
Freeman, 23, made a brief appearance in court today on a school safety zone residency violation charge. It accuses him of living within 1,000 feet of Carpenter Elementary School, which is illegal for registered sex offenders, with a few exceptions. If convicted, Freeman faces up to a year in jail.
The case was adjourned until March 12 so the motion on the 2003 conviction can be heard.
In 2003, Freeman was convicted of having sex with his girlfriend when he was 17 and she was 15. In Michigan, the legal age of consent is 16. Freeman must register as a sex offender until Aug. 17, 2028.
According to the motion, Freeman pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct on July 23, 2003, in front of Shelton. However, when the paperwork on the conviction was prepared, it read as though Freeman pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct involving force and/or coercion, the motion says.
The motion asks that the record be corrected to “accurately reflect” that Freeman pleaded guilty to the section of the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statue relating to “statutory criminal sexual conduct, that is sexual relations with a female under the age of 16.”
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at (734) 623-2527 or by email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Sandra Samons
Sat, Feb 13, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.
In response to the comment by wolverine3660, this young man may or may not stay out of trouble, but this is still an injustice and may result in his being so bitter about the system that it could contribute to him being in further trouble. If we remove the injustice and he gets in trouble anyway, he will not have this as an excuse. So, cynicism aside, this is not really about this one young man, but about keeping our justice system just. I hope all of these A2.com comments will be placed before the judge, for his consideration as he makes his decision.
Lee Higgins
Sat, Feb 13, 2010 : 8:42 a.m.
blugoose, Thanks for raising that issue. I just read an article about that after your post. Given the number of registered sex offenders who are homeless, perhaps that's something we could look into locally.
blugoose
Sat, Feb 13, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.
Thanks to the State Court of Appeals, all he has to do now is claim he is homeless and then he doesn't have to register, verify, or follow any of the Sex Offender Registration Act. Thanks judges! Maybe these guys can come live next door to them.
mitch
Sat, Feb 13, 2010 : 2:33 a.m.
It's unclear what subsection of the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute Goldstein is referring to in the motion. One subsection deals with a victim of "at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age" and someone who is "five or more years older than that other person."
mitch
Sat, Feb 13, 2010 : 1:56 a.m.
In the Motion Goldfinger wants to change his plea from coercion to just plain having sex with someone under 16. Why would Freeman want to plead guilty to anything when he was not more than three years older than the victim and therefore not guilty of anything!
treetowncartel
Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 4:37 p.m.
Prosecutors and Public Defenders are not highly paid individuals, especially if you look at the data in relation to the proposed city income tax. Kind of off topic here, but if county employees who work in the city, like the prosecutor, public defender and judge in this specicific case, are subject to the proposed income tax any possibility they might relocate out of the city? Why not just put everything out by the Sherrif's office in Pittsfield township. the consolidation would go a long way on saving tax dollars too.
KeepingItReal
Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 3:54 p.m.
It would be a shame for the judge to rule against this young man especially as it appears the the judge, the prosecutor and the public defender were in error in the original sentence. While they have gone about their lives, this young man have had to deal with this mess in a variety of ways including having his life up to this point basically ruined because he had to register as a sex offender and anyone in the US can pull up info about him and draw the utmost negative conclusion. This kid should not have to suffer any longer for the screw up committed by our trusted, highly paid and esteemed professionals.
Wolverine3660
Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 3:14 p.m.
Lets see how long he stays out of trouble, even if he manages to skate on this sex-offender issue.
Lokalisierung
Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 2:22 p.m.
Cut this kid a break already. I was just thiking of this the other day. What if he had gotten his girlfriend pregnant during this time? Would he then be a sex offender and not be allowed to live with children (his own child) and not allowed to be near a school (take his child to school)?