Opinion
SC 166874 COA 359283
09-27-2024
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANNAH JALISA ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Berrien CC: 2020-003716-FH
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden, Justices
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2024 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
WELCH, J. (concurring).
I agree with the Court's decision to deny leave to appeal because I agree with the Court of Appeals' holding on remand that this defendant has not overcome the presumption of proportionality that attached to their within-guidelines sentence. See People v Posey, 512 Mich. 317 (2023). Particularly relevant to this case is the defendant's probationer status at the time of the sentencing offense and their own criminal history, which includes a past instance of making a false report to law enforcement and another instance of misleading law enforcement as to their involvement in an arson. Considering this history and the facts underlying the sentencing offense, I cannot conclude that defendant's sentence of 10 to 20 years for making a false report or threat of terrorism in violation of MCL 750.543m is disproportionate or unreasonable.
I write separately to highlight my belief that, although unsuccessful here, comparisons between a challenged sentence and the sentences imposed against different individuals for the same crime could be a potentially viable tactic for supporting an argument that a criminal sentence is unreasonable or disproportionate to the offense or offender. See Posey, 512 Mich. at 359 (opinion by BOLDEN, J.); People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich. 453 (2017); People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (1990). Although potentially viable, such arguments present inherent difficulties. A court must consider not only the facts underlying the sentencing offense, but also characteristics unique to the offender, such as whether they have engaged in past criminal misconduct. Offender-specific and offensespecific information would be relevant to any proportionality argument attempting to compare one sentence against another even when two people are convicted of the same crime.
The accessibility of sentencing data at the trial court level is limited at this time, but this Court is engaged in work aimed at increasing transparency within the judiciary. It is my hope that these efforts will result in increased access to sentencing data, which I believe will allow the judiciary to better ensure that those convicted of felonies across the state are sentenced in a fair, reasonable, and proportionate manner considering their crimes and other relevant information.
See Michigan Supreme Court, New Budget Will Help Courts Improve Access, Efficiency Statewide (August 1, 2023), available at <https://www.courts.michigan.gov/news-releases/2023/july/new-budget-will-help-courts-improve-access,-efficiency-statewide/> (accessed September 16, 2024) [https://perma.cc/K3KD-W9GL] (noting specific funds earmarked for data transparency and juvenile probation data); Michigan Supreme Court, Interactive Court Data Dashboard Launched (April 24, 2023) <https://www.courts.michigan.gov/news-releases/2023/april/interactive-court-data-dashboard-launched/> (accessed September 16, 2024) [https://perma.cc/B992-3EWK].