Resentencing of a defendant convicted of first-degree murder committed while a juvenile; Miller v Alabama; Montgomery v Louisiana; Due process; Missing pieces of the original trial court record; Distinguishing People v Adkins; Whether a life in prison without parole (LWOP) sentence is categorically barred for crimes committed before a defendant was 18 years old; People v Carp; Burden of proof at the Miller hearing

The court held that missing pieces from the original trial court record did not deprive defendant of due process during the Miller hearing, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to LWOP after considering the Miller factors. Further, under Carp, his LWOP sentence for a first-degree murder committed before he was 18 was not categorically barred by the state and/or federal constitution. Finally, the court found that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to place the burden of proof that he was “irreparably corrupt” on the prosecution. He was convicted for the 1970 murder of his pregnant former girlfriend, committed when he was 17 years old. The court noted that a “transcript of the rendering of the jury’s verdict at” his trial was missing, but the parties did not dispute that the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder. “The remaining six volumes of over 1200 pages of the jury trial were available for review. Defendant does not even state how the jury’s verdict would provide any evidence relating to any of the Miller factors. Thus,” there was no violation of his due-process rights. The other documents he asserted were needed were “the prosecutor’s original file, police reports, the” trial court clerk’s original file, and his trial counsel’s (M) case file. He noted in his appellate brief that defense counsel appointed for his Miller hearing contended that M’s “case file was ‘likely the best mitigating evidence’ of defendant’s behavior and limitations around the time of the crime and trial, and that the prosecutor’s file ‘likely also contained mitigating evidence’ given” the trial prosecutor’s concerns about the trial in hindsight. But this was “mere speculation" and he did not explain "why the clerk’s file or police reports would be relevant to the Miller factors.” This case was distinguishable from Adkins because the record here “was plenty sufficient for appellate review. It contained six lower court files, three from defendant’s original proceedings and three from defendant’s current proceedings, as well as the preliminary examination, trial, competency hearing, Ginther hearing, and Miller hearing transcripts, as well as other proceedings.” The court also rejected his claim that the Miller factors mitigated against imposing a LWOP sentence, concluding that the trial court’s findings on the Miller factors were not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.