Opinion
No. 127958.
November 18, 2005.
Reconsideration Denied.
SC: 127958, COA: 258229.
Leave to appeal denied at 472 Mich 921.
KELLY and MARKMAN, JJ. We would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.
I dissent from the denial of leave. I would grant leave to explore what relief could be afforded this defendant.
In 1981, defendant and a codefendant, both 19 years of age at the time, used a pellet-shooting air rifle to rob a 14-year-old ice cream bicycle vendor of several dollars. Defendant held and brandished the air rifle while his codefendant actually took the money. They both entered guilty pleas to a charge of assault with intent to rob while armed. The codefendant received a sentence of six months in the county jail with work release. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison.
In 1983, this Court remanded this matter to the trial court and directed the sentencing judge to explain the reason for the great disparity in the two sentences. The trial court explained that this defendant had a more extensive, assaultive juvenile record and the public needed him removed from the streets for a number of years. It can be inferred from the trial court's statements that the court expected that the practice in place before the passage of Proposal B of parole eligibility after ten years of a life sentence would provide defendant with review.
Now, 24 years after sentence, defendant again seeks relief from this Court. I would grant leave to explore what relief might be possible. Short of that, I would order the Department of Corrections to show cause why this defendant remains incarcerated.