Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Skinner

889 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. 2017)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Skinner

5 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. Snyder

    878 F.3d 193 (6th Cir. 2017)   Cited 214 times
    Holding Younger inapplicable to "Plaintiffs’ claims," without limitation

    These individuals will eventually be resentenced under Sections 769.25 and 769.25a, but two cases pending before the Michigan Supreme Court have delayed their Miller hearings. See People v. Skinner , 500 Mich. 929, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017) (mem.); People v. Hyatt , 500 Mich. 929, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017) (mem.).

  2. Hill v. Snyder

    308 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Finding commonality among class members challenging state's statutory scheme barring them from parole eligibility "[r]egardless of individual factors regarding a prisoner's likelihood of parole"

    As the Sixth Circuit has observed, "two cases pending before the Michigan Supreme Court have delayed ... Miller hearings. See People v. Skinner, 500 Mich. 929, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017) (mem.); People v. Hyatt, 500 Mich. 929, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017) (mem.).

  3. Hill v. Snyder

    Case No. 10-cv-14568 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2018)

    As the Sixth Circuit has observed, "two cases pending before the Michigan Supreme Court have delayed . . . Miller hearings. See People v. Skinner, 889 N.W. 2d 487 (Mich. 2017) (mem.); People v. Hyatt, 889 N.W. 2d 487 (Mich. 2017) (mem.).

  4. People v. Skinner

    502 Mich. 89 (Mich. 2018)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that MCL 769.25 does not require a judge to find any particular fact before imposing LWOP

    This Court granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal and directed the parties to address "whether the decision to sentence a person under the age of 18 to a prison term of life without parole under MCL 769.25 must be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt[.]" People v. Skinner , 500 Mich. 929, 929, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017). B. HYATT

  5. Commonwealth v. Batts

    163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017)   Cited 247 times
    Holding a jury was not required to make a finding regarding a juvenile’s eligibility to be sentenced to life without parole because a finding of a permanent incorrigibility "cannot be said to be an element of the crime committed; it is instead an immutable characteristic of the juvenile offender"

    Our research further reveals that none of the highest courts in other states have ruled that Miller requires either expert testimony or a jury determination pursuant to Apprendi and its progeny for a juvenile to constitutionally be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. But see People v. Skinner, 500 Mich. 929, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017) (Michigan Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to consider "whether the decision to sentence a person under the age of 18 to a prison term of life without parole under MCL 769.25 must be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt" pursuant to Apprendi ). VIII. Conclusion