Sentencing; The 25-year mandatory-minimum under MCL 750.520b(2)(b); Cruel &/or unusual punishment; People v Benton; People v Payne; Proportionality; People v Taylor; Effect of defendant’s alleged cognitive impairments; Reliance on case law related to juveniles sentenced to mandatory life without the possibility for parole (LWOP) for first-degree murder; Miller v Alabama; Right to be physically present at sentencing; Use of videoconference technology; Failure to obtain a waiver; People v Anderson; Voluntariness of a plea; MCR 6.302; People v Armisted; Ineffective assistance of counsel

The court held that defendant’s 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for his CSC I conviction involving a child victim “was not cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment and was not cruel or unusual under the Michigan Constitution.” While the trial court erred in sentencing him via videoconferencing technology without obtaining a waiver, the court concluded he was not entitled to resentencing. Finally, it rejected his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. He was 25 years old at the time of the crime. He argued the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence was “cruel and/or unusual punishment and disproportionate to the offense and defendant as an individual with diminished intellectual capacity.” The court noted it held in Benton “that the imposition of a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for” CSC I does not constitute cruel and/or unusual punishment. Further, in Payne it held that such a sentence for CSC I “applied to a 17½-year-old juvenile with various ‘intellectual difficulties, and ongoing treatment for various mental-health disorders’ was not unconstitutional under either the Eighth Amendment” or the Michigan Constitution. These decisions were binding. Further, it rejected defendant’s assertion that Benton was distinguishable and that recent cases involving juveniles sentenced to mandatory LWOP for first-degree murder supported his claim “that his sentence is disproportionate because of his alleged cognitive impairments.” The court noted that it rejected “applying Miller in this context” in Payne. Turning to the facts of this case, it further noted that “defendant twice sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl in her own bedroom, giving her a chronic, sexually transmitted disease. The devastating emotional, physical, and psychological impacts of [his] actions are clear on this record. The gravity of [his] offense far outweighs the severity of his sentence considering the lifelong harm that defendant has inflicted upon the victim. . . . Moreover, the 25-year minimum sentence is proportionate in relation to sentences in other jurisdictions and other offenses in Michigan.” As to his right to be physically present at sentencing, apart from his “physical absence, defendant’s sentencing was conducted in a constitutional manner.” And the trial “court imposed the sentence that the parties agreed upon and that was proscribed by the Legislature.” Affirmed.