Judicial disqualification motion; MCR 2.003(C); Appearance of impropriety; Caperton v AT Massey Coal Co, Inc; Sentencing; Term-of-years sentence under MCL769.25a; Life without parole (LWOP) sentencing for juvenile offenders; Miller v Alabama; Montgomery v Louisiana

The court held that the circuit court chief judge did not err by affirming the resentencing judge’s denial of defendant’s judicial disqualification motion. In 2002, when defendant was 16, the court affirmed his sentences of LWOP for first-degree felony murder, and 2 years for felony-firearm. In 2021, the parties entered a sentencing agreement providing for a sentence of 33 to 60 years with credit for time served and submitted it to the circuit court for consideration. The resentencing judge rejected the agreement, refused to impose an alternative sentence, and advised the parties that it intended to set the matter for a Miller hearing. Defendant moved to disqualify the resentencing judge. The resentencing judge denied the motion. The circuit court’s chief judge also denied the motion after a hearing. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the resentencing judge must be disqualified because he predetermined the sentence and his conduct otherwise created the appearance of impropriety. “The record does not support defendant’s claim that the resentencing judge predetermined defendant’s sentence.” Defense counsel waived the right to claim the resentencing court erred by offering a preliminary analysis, defendant failed to show any due-process violation, “let alone one so ‘extreme’ as to require judicial disqualification,” and the resentencing judge’s statements during the hearing “neither indicated that the court predetermined a sentence, nor demonstrated that the court would not impose a sentence within the statutorily defined sentence range if the opportunity arose to do so.” In addition, defendant failed to prove any actual prejudice, and his “argument that he need not demonstrate actual prejudice because the resentencing judge acted as a ‘factfinder or initial decisionmaker’” was unpersuasive. As to the appearance of impropriety, the court noted that because the sentencing judge’s “brief offscreen moments do not indicate inattentiveness or any other impropriety during the proceeding, such do not create an appearance of impropriety.” Similarly, the court was “not persuaded that viewing the parties in the Zoom default active speaker view mode was improper or created an appearance of impropriety.” Further, the record “belies defendant’s claim that the resentencing judge lacked legal competency,” and his argument that the resentencing judge “misunderstood and was hostile toward the Miller factors also lacks merit.” Affirmed