Summary
explaining that, when sentencing a juvenile, sentencing courts may consider "the traditional objectives of sentencing"
Summary of this case from People v. WatsonOpinion
SC: 155886 COA: 329091
10-21-2020
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel GARAY, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Order
By order of April 5, 2019, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant were held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Masalmani . On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in Masalmani on May 29, 2020, 505 Mich. ––––, 943 N.W.2d 359 (2020), the applications are again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it would broadly preclude sentencing courts from considering, at all, the traditional objectives of sentencing – punishment, deterrence, protection, retribution, and rehabilitation – when considering whether to sentence persons who were under the age of 18 when they committed their offenses to a term of life without parole. Although reliance on other criteria to the exclusion of, or without proper consideration of, Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), would be an abuse of discretion, mere consideration of the traditional objectives of sentencing or other factors is not, per se , an error of law. See MCL 769.25(6) - (7).
In addition, in light of People v. Skinner , 502 Mich. 89, 917 N.W.2d 292 (2018), we VACATE the remainder of part IV of the Court of Appeals judgment and we REMAND this case to that court to determine whether the trial court properly considered the "factors listed in Miller v. Alabama , [567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407] (2012)," MCL 769.25(6), or otherwise abused its discretion. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.