Opinion
SC 162459 COA 354605
12-09-2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRAIG DEAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Wayne CC: 86-006381-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 August 3, 2021, the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2020 order 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 REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich. ___(2022) (Docket No. 162086), and People v Stovall, 510 Mich. ___(2022) (Docket No. 162425).
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Zahra, J. (dissenting).
I dissent from the part of this Court's order remanding the case for consideration as on leave granted 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 under MCR 6.508(D).
Viviano, J. (dissenting).
For the reasons stated in my dissent in People v Stovall, 510 Mich. (2022) (Docket No. 162425), I do not believe defendant has overcome the procedural bar to file a successive motion for relief from judgment and would deny leave to appeal under MCR 6.502(G). But even if defendant could overcome the procedural bar, 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 respectfully dissent.