Sentencing; Whether it is permissible to proscribe the use of marijuana as a condition of probation for nonmarijuana-related crimes; Conditions of probation; MCL 771.3(1)-(3); People v Houston; Tailoring of discretionary conditions; MCL 771.3(11); Recreational use of marijuana under the Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA); MCL 333.27955; People v Thue; People v Lopez-Hernandez; Federal prohibition of recreational marijuana use; 21 USC § 844(a); Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA)

Addressing an issue of first impression, the court held that the district court did not abuse “its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to amend the terms of her probation and dismiss her probation violations on the basis that the condition of her probation prohibiting the use of marijuana was unlawful under the MRTMA.” She pled guilty to third-degree retail fraud and was sentenced to 12 months’ probation under the HYTA. The order prohibited her from using or possessing marijuana and required that she submit to drug screening. However, she twice tested positive for marijuana, resulting in two probation violations. She pled guilty to the first violation, but after the second violation she moved the district court to amend the terms of her probation to allow the use and possession of marijuana, to vacate her first violation, and to dismiss her second violation. She argued that the probation against recreational use of marijuana violated the plain language of the MRTMA. The district court denied her motion, found she violated a lawful term of her probation, revoked her HYTA status, and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. The circuit court denied her application for leave to appeal. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion and revoking her probation, concluding it is permissible to “proscribe the use of marijuana as a condition of probation for nonmarijuana-related crimes.” The federal controlled substances act “considers ‘marijuana an unlawful controlled substance.’ 21 USC § 844(a) states, in relevant part, ‘[i]t shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice . . . .’ Clearly, as a condition of probation, probationers ‘shall not violate any criminal law of this state, the United States, or another state or any ordinance.’ Using recreational marijuana may be permissible in Michigan but it is still prohibited by federal law.” In this case, defendant “was ordered to obey all state, federal, and local laws. She did not. She violated her lawfully imposed terms of probation.” Affirmed.