Opinion
SC: 162150 COA: 354113
12-09-2022
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua Dwayne LAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of July 9, 2021, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 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 ––––, 977 N.W.2d 530 (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 ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3008548 (2022) (Docket No. 162086), and People v Stovall , 510 Mich ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3007491 (2022) (Docket No. 162425). The motion to vacate the judgment of sentence is DENIED.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Zahra, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
While I concur in the denial of the motion to vacate the judgment of sentence, 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 ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3008548 (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. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the denial of the motion to vacate the judgment of sentence. But for the reasons stated in my dissent in People v Stovall , ––– Mich ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3007491 (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). Even if defendant could overcome the procedural bar, for the reasons stated in Chief Justice CLEMENT ’s dissent in People v Parks , 510 Mich ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3008548 (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 from the order remanding to the Court of Appeals.