These two cases concern the
sentencing of juvenile offenders who have been convicted of first-degree murder
under MCL 769.25. The cases will
be argued together.
In Skinner, the 17-year-old defendant enlisted friends to
kill her parents, and they succeeded in killing one of them. The defendant was
convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to mandatory life
without parole. After the United States Supreme Court held in Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460; 132 S Ct
2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), that a mandatory sentencing scheme of life in
prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders is unconstitutional,
the Michigan Legislature enacted MCL 769.25, providing for a term of years for
juveniles who commit first-degree murder (or certain other offenses), unless
the prosecution files a motion seeking life without parole, and the trial court
holds a hearing. In this case, following a hearing, the defendant was
resentenced to life without parole, over defense objection that this decision
could only be made by a jury under Apprendi
v New Jersey, 530 US 466, 476; 120 S Ct 2348; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), in
light of Montgomery v Louisiana, 577
US ___; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016), and Miller v Alabama. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with
the defendant and remanded for resentencing before a jury. This Court has
granted leave to address whether the decision to sentence a juvenile to life
without parole under MCL 769.25 must be made by a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt.
In Hyatt, the 17-year-old defendant helped family members to
carry out a plan to rob a security guard of his firearm. During the robbery,
the guard was fatally shot. The defendant was convicted of first-degree felony
murder and, after a hearing on the prosecutor’s motion, the trial court sentenced
him to life without parole under MCL 769.25. The Court of Appeals held that it
was bound to follow People v Skinner,
312 Mich App 15 (2015), but declared a conflict, expressing its opinion that a
jury need not make the sentencing decision. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals
convened a conflict-resolution panel, which unanimously agreed that no jury is
needed. However, a four-judge majority of the conflict panel nevertheless
ordered resentencing, believing that the trial court had erred by failing to
decide whether the defendant exhibited “irreparable corruption” so as to deserve
life without parole. The conflict panel declared that sentencing courts must
start with the understanding that, more likely than not, life without parole is
not a proportionate sentence for a juvenile. The conflict panel also declared
the appellate standard of review in these cases to be “abuse of discretion” based
on the notion that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is “inherently
suspect” and probably disproportionate. This Court has directed oral argument
to address whether the Court of Appeals
conflict-resolution panel erred by applying a heightened standard of consideration
and review for sentences imposed under MCL 769.25.