Sentencing; Whether improper considerations played a role; Proportionality; Defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor; People v Boykin; Miller v Alabama; People v Snow; Life without parole (LWOP); Presentence investigation report (PSIR)

Holding that “the trial court sentenced defendant to a proportional sentence that was not an abuse of its discretion[,]” the court affirmed. He was “convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to mandatory” LWOP for a crime committed when he was 16 years old. Following Miller, he was resentenced to 40 to 60 years. The court previously concluded “the trial court erred by failing to order certain corrections to” his PSIR. It did not address the issue of proportionality. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated that decision in part, and remanded with directions for the court to retain jurisdiction and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on his proportionality claim. “On remand, the trial court made the corrections to the PSIR, found that its sentencing decision was not affected by information erroneously included in the PSIR at the time, declined to resentence defendant, and concluded the remand.” The court found that the trial court complied with its “order when it stated that the erroneously included information did not affect defendant’s sentence. The Court determined in its last opinion that it was unclear from the record whether the improper information from the PSIR contributed to the” sentencing decision and thus, remanded for clarification. The court noted that the “trial court did not have to prove or provide additional explanation to this Court to support that the erroneously included information did not affect its decision.” The court also rejected his renewed proportionality argument related to his youth as a mitigating factor. It concluded the trial court’s statements indicated it reviewed his “youth and considered impulsivity connected to youth as a potentially mitigating factor. But [it] found that evidence of premeditation called into question the reliability of evidence of mitigation, including mitigation related to [his] youth. The trial court did not use [his] youth as an aggravating factor. Instead, [it] considered the goals of punishment and deterrence, the Miller factors, the Snow factors, and the principles of proportionality, in addition to considering defendant’s youth at the time of the offense.”