Opinion
SC 162170 COA 330612
12-09-2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEX JAY ADAMOWICZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Oakland CC: 2014-251162-FC
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices
ORDER
By order of September 22, 2021, the application for leave to appeal the September 3, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v Poole (Docket No. 161529). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 28, 2022, 510 Mich__ (2022), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part IV of the June 22, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich__ (2022) (Docket No. 162086). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Zahra, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I dissent from the part of this Court's order vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanding the case to that court for reconsideration in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich__ (2022) (Docket No. 162086), which held that Const 1963, art 1, § 16 bars mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 18-year-old homicide offenders. Because defendant was over the age of 18 at the time he committed first-degree murder, he is not entitled to relief under Parks. Therefore, I would deny leave on all the issues raised in defendant's application.
Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
For the reasons stated in Chief Justice CLEMENT's dissent in People v Parks, 510 Mich__ (2022) (Docket No. 162086), I do not believe that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a defendant who committed first-degree murder when he was over the age of 17 is unconstitutional. Therefore, I would deny leave to appeal on all of the issues raised by defendant.