From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Galloway

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Oct 28, 2015
498 Mich. 902 (Mich. 2015)

Opinion

Docket No. 150454. COA No. 316262.

2015-10-28

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Anthony GALLOWAY, Defendant–Appellant.


Order

By order of March 31, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the October 7, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich. 358, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Crawford Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge. On remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuadedthat the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.


Summaries of

People v. Galloway

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Oct 28, 2015
498 Mich. 902 (Mich. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Galloway

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Anthony…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Oct 28, 2015

Citations

498 Mich. 902 (Mich. 2015)
498 Mich. 902

Citing Cases

People v. Cochran

Conflicting testimony is not sufficient to warrant granting a new trial unless the testimony is "'so…

People v. Allen

Id. at 643-644, 576 N.W.2d 129. Given that the testimony at trial cannot be said to have "contradict[ed]…