Sentencing; Consideration of youth as a mitigating factor; Miller v Alabama; People v Boykin; People v Snow; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Posey; Life without parole (LWOP); Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)

The court concluded the trial court on resentencing “gave thorough and well-reasoned consideration to defendant’s age as it affected the proportionality of his sentence.” The court also held that the 40 to 60-year sentence it imposed for his first-degree murder conviction was proportionate and reasonable. He was also convicted of second-degree home invasion. He was 17 years old at the time of the crimes in 2006. He was originally sentenced to LWOP for the murder conviction but the case was remanded for resentencing under Miller. He asserted the trial court on resentencing did not “adequately consider his youth as a mitigating factor as required by Miller and its progeny, and that it imposed a disproportionate and therefore unreasonable sentence.” The court disagreed. At the end of the Miller hearing, “the trial court found that defendant was impetuous, lacking in complete growth, and impulsive in his behavior, and that he had failed to appreciate the risks or consequences of his behavior. [It] also acknowledged [his] upbringing and home environment, including the fact that his parents were largely absent from his life, leaving him to be raised by his sickly grandmother. [It] also discussed defendant’s lack of a bond with his parents and the fact that [his] childhood was characterized by bullying, substance abuse, academic struggle, trauma, and domestic violence.” Further, it found that he “was working toward rehabilitation.” The court concluded the record showed “the trial court more than adequately considered defendant’s youth in light of Miller.” In addition, it “discussed all four Snow objectives and how they impacted its sentencing decision.” The court further determined that he failed to show “his sentence was unreasonable and disproportionate under the circumstances of” the case. The trial court noted he “expressed genuine remorse for killing the victim” and it acknowledged the possibility he “may have the potential to be a law-abiding citizen upon release.” But it also considered an MDOC evaluation classifying him “as a having a high risk of recidivism and a medium risk for violence.” It additionally considered, among other things, his age as it impacted his rehabilitation potential, “the sentencing objectives of deterrence, the protection of society, and” disciplining defendant, and “the horrific nature of the crime and the suffering of the victim’s family.” Affirmed.