Opinion
SC 163564 COA 352302
12-09-2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINICK DONOVAN WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Macomb CC: 2018-003529-FC
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice, Brian K. Zahra, Bridget M. McCormack, David F. Viviano, Richard H. Bernstein, Megan K. Cavanagh, Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices.
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 29, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment reversing the defendant's sentence, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of that issue in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich. (2022) (Docket No. 162086), and People v Stovall, 510 Mich. (2022). 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.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Zahra, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I dissent from the part of this Court's order that remands this case for reconsideration in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich. (2022) (Docket No. 162086) (holding that Const 1963, art 1, § 16 bars mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 18-year-old homicide offenders) and People v Stovall, 510 Mich. (2022) (Docket No. 162425) (holding that Const 1963, art 1, § 16 bars parolable life sentences for juvenile homicide offenders). Defendant was 18 years old when he committed acts leading to his first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) conviction, which mandates a 25-year minimum sentence, see MCL 750.520b(2)(b). Because nothing in Parks or Stovall places into doubt the constitutionality of a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for 18-year-old offenders convicted of CSC-I, I would deny leave on all the issues raised in defendant's application.
Also, for the reasons stated in my dissent in Stovall, 510 Mich. at n 24, n 25 (Zahra, J., dissenting), I would revisit our caselaw interpreting Const 1963, art 1, § 16- specifically whether Article 1, § 16 provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment and whether Article 1, § 16 contains a proportionality guarantee.
Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
For the reasons stated in Chief Justice CLEMENT's dissent in People v Parks, 510 Mich. (2022) (Docket No. 162086), and Justice ZAHRA's dissent in People v Stovall, 510 Mich. (2022) (Docket No. 162425), I do not believe the majority in those cases properly applied the test for determining whether a sentence is constitutionally proportionate that this Court established in People v Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167 (1992), and People v Bullock, 440 Mich. 15 (1992). I would not remand this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of what I believe are flawed analyses of the Lorentzen/Bullock test. Furthermore, for the reasons stated in Stovall, 510 Mich. at n 24, n 25 (Zahra, J., dissenting), I believe that in an appropriate future case, we should revisit our caselaw interpreting Const 1963, art 1, § 16 holding (1) that the provision provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and (2) that the provision contains a proportionality component. I respectfully dissent from the order remanding this case to the Court of Appeals but concur in the denial of leave in all other respects.