Opinion
SC 162969 COA 346867
03-01-2024
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARC ANTHONY OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Kent CC: 99-006518-FC
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
By order of December 21, 2022, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v Musselman (Docket No. 163290). On order of the Court, the order directing oral argument on the application in Musselman having been vacated on November 22, 2023, ___Mich___ (2023), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE Part III and VACATE Part IV of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, VACATE the sentence of the Kent Circuit Court, and REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. A court may not impose a sentence of life without parole on a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of his crime unless the prosecution has overcome its burden to rebut the presumption, by clear and convincing evidence, that life without parole is a disproportionate sentence. People v Taylor, 510 Mich. 112, 138-139 (2022). Because the sentencing court in this case was not operating within this framework, the defendant is entitled to resentencing. Id. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
For the reasons stated in my partial dissent in People v Taylor, 510 Mich. 112, 150 (2022), I do not believe there is a presumption that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a disproportionate sentence or that the prosecution is required to rebut this presumption in order for a court to impose such a sentence on a defendant who was under the age of 18 at the time of his crime. Therefore, I do not believe defendant is entitled to resentencing. I respectfully dissent from the order reversing in part the Court of Appeals' judgment, vacating defendant's sentence, and remanding for resentencing; I concur in the denial of leave in all other respects.