Opinion
SC: 163892 COA: 353247
12-09-2022
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Edward RICHARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 2, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part II of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, VACATE the sentence of the Berrien 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 ––––, –––– N.W.2d ––––, 2022 WL 3008301 (July 28, 2022) (Docket No. 154994). 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 question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
For the reasons stated in my dissent in People v Taylor , 510 Mich ––––, –––– N.W.2d ––––, 2022 WL 3008301 (2022) (Docket No. 154994), I do not believe there is a presumption that life without parole is a disproportionate sentence or that the prosecution is required to rebut this presumption in order for a court to impose a sentence of life without parole 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 vacating 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.