Sentencing for armed robbery; Motion for relief from judgment; MCR 6.508(D)(2); Juvenile sentencing; Miller v Alabama; Montgomery v Louisiana; Distinguishing People v Turner; Cruel or unusual punishment; Distinguishing People v Eads; Proportionality; Appellate jurisdiction; Appeal of right; Application for leave; MCR 6.509(A)

Holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider defendant’s sentencing challenges because he filed a claim of appeal of right, rather than an application for leave to appeal, as required by MCR 6.509(A), the court dismissed the appeal. He was convicted of a variety of crimes for breaking into the home of an 85-year-old woman, threatening to kill her with a knife, raping her, tying her up in a chair, and ransacking her home. He was 17 at the time. The trial court sentenced him to 125 to 250 years for CSC I, 50 to 100 for armed robbery, and 10 to 15 for breaking and entering. In a prior appeal, the court vacated the sentence for CSC I, but upheld the sentence for armed robbery. On remand, the trial court imposed a sentence of life with the possibility of parole for CSC I, which the court affirmed. The trial court subsequently granted relief from the CSC I sentence and imposed a new term of 40 to 60 years, leaving in place the sentence for armed robbery. In the present appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to resentence him for armed robbery. The court noted it had repeatedly affirmed that sentence “on direct appeal, explaining that it was proportionate and constitutionally sound. Because of those rulings on the merits,” MCR 6.508(D)(2) precluded defendant from seeking relief in a motion for relief from judgment. The trial court “did not abuse its discretion, as a matter of procedure, by leaving undisturbed the sentence for armed robbery despite defendant’s procedural objections based on Turner.” The court refused to consider his claim that his 50 to 100-year sentence for armed robbery was disproportionate and constituted cruel or unusual punishment, noting he “filed a claim of appeal of right, disregarding the requirement in MCR 6.509(A), and depriving” the court “of its authority to consider whether to grant or deny an application for leave to appeal. Defendant’s failure to comply with the universal mandate in MCR 6.509(A) forecloses appellate review of his constitutional challenges at this juncture.”