Juvenile life without parole (LWOP) resentencing, Miller factors & aggravating circumstances; MCL 769.25; Miller v Alabama; Involuntary dismissal at Miller hearing under MCR 2.504(B)(2); MCR 2.504; Samuel D Begola Servs, Inc v Wild Bros; Ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing; Categorical bar on juvenile LWOP under Michigan Constitution; Const 1963, art 1, § 16; People v Carp

The court held that errors in the trial court’s analysis of the Miller factors required vacating defendant’s juvenile LWOP sentence and remanding for reconsideration under the proper framework. But it rejected his challenges to the denial of dismissal, his ineffective assistance claims, and his request for a categorical bar on juvenile LWOP. Defendant, who was 16 when he kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and killed a five-year-old, was originally sentenced to mandatory LWOP and later resentenced after Miller and Michigan’s implementing scheme in MCL 769.25. At the Miller hearing the court found the first two factors mitigating, the remaining three neutral, and imposed LWOP based largely on its view that defendant had “failed to take acknowledgment of the predatory nature of his conduct” and on reports noting “clinical concern” about his emotional identification with children, hostility toward women, and deviant sexual interests. The panel held that the Miller factors are mitigating only, so defendant’s failure to fully accept responsibility could not both neutralize the fifth factor and serve as an aggravating circumstance, and that the [trial] court improperly treated his violent past as evidence of his current “possibility of rehabilitation.” It directed the trial court on remand to reevaluate the fifth factor and the overall balance without those errors, although it did not preclude a renewed LWOP sentence. The court upheld denial of defendant’s MCR 2.504(B)(2) motion because exhibits, including sex-offender assessments, provided evidence on the Miller and aggravating factors, so it could not be said the prosecution had not shown “no right to relief.” It also rejected ineffective assistance claims where the judge explicitly stated she did not rely on an officer’s lay opinion and would not have been influenced by a witness’s polygraph results, leaving no reasonable probability of a different outcome. Finally, bound by Carp, the court reaffirmed that Const 1963, art 1, § 16 does not categorically bar juvenile LWOP and concluded the trial court correctly denied that claim. The court retained jurisdiction.