Life without parole (LWOP) sentence; Miller v Alabama factors; Compliance with the court’s remand order; Whether the court should have ordered resentencing; The court’s discretion; MCR 7.216(A)(7); The trial court’s consideration of the evidence; People v Copeland

The court held that the trial court on remand “sufficiently explained why a LWOP sentence was proportionate given this defendant’s background and the offense for which he was being sentenced” (a first-degree murder conviction for the rape and murder of a five-year-old child). The court previously vacated the original LWOP sentence and remanded “for the trial court to reevaluate its analysis under the proper framework.” On remand, the trial court corrected the two errors of law the court had found in its analysis and still determined that a LWOP sentence was appropriate here. In this appeal, defendant first argued that the court should have remanded for resentencing. It disagreed, noting that MCR 7.216(A)(7) gives it the discretion to render the relief it deemed was required. While “defendant may have wished for a different remedy, we were not required to provide one.” As to his claim that the trial court ignored the testimony of psychologist (M), the trial court simply disagreed with some of M’s conclusions. Disagreeing with M’s “opinion about defendant’s potential for rehabilitation is not akin to ignoring the opinion, nor is it a basis for finding clear error.” As to the weight it gave to certain testimony, the trial court was clearly aware of the testimony, and it was within its “discretion to decide how much weight to afford that evidence.” The court further found that the record did not support defendant’s claim that the trial court considered his “failure to take responsibility for his actions as an aggravating factor[.]” As to his argument concerning the third Miller factor, the “conduct underlying the offense is clearly distinct from these considerations. The trial court here considered defendant’s conduct underlying the offense as an aggravating factor, as it was permitted to do.” Finally, the court disagreed with his claim “that the trial court relied on any erroneous factual findings in support of its sentence[.]”