Second-degree murder; Resentencing; Proportionality; Youth as mitigating factor; Term-of-years sentence; Cruel or unusual punishment; Miller v Alabama; People v Boykin; People v Stovall; People v Eads; People v Echols; People v Campbell; People v Snow

The court held that defendant’s 375-month to 100-year sentence for second-degree murder was proportionate and that the trial court adequately considered his youth as mitigating. Defendant was 17 when he and a codefendant shot and killed the victim during an attempted robbery involving a bicycle sale. The case returned to the trial court after an earlier remand for resentencing or further articulation of the departure sentence. On remand, the trial court imposed a within-guidelines sentence. The court first held that the sentence was not cruel or unusual and did not violate proportionality. It reasoned that the minimum sentence was far shorter than sentences found unconstitutional or disproportionate in Stovall, Eads, Echols, and Campbell, and that the “severity of defendant’s sentence correlates to the gravity of his offense” because defendant “shot and killed the victim in an argument about the sale of a bicycle[.]” The court also noted the sentence was below the midpoint of the 25-to-40-year minimum range applicable to many young first-degree-murder offenders under MCL 769.25. The court next found the trial court considered youth as mitigating because it reviewed expert materials on adolescent brain development and prison rehabilitation, stated it was “well aware of the issue with regards to brain development,” and recognized that youth affects the ability “to make intelligent decisions and to appreciate consequences.” Because the trial court also considered defendant’s record, lack of remorse, and the circumstances of the offense, resentencing was not required. Affirmed.