Sentencing; Life without the possibility of parole for first-degree felony murder committed when defendant was 17 years old; Miller v. Alabama; People v. Skinner; Abuse of discretion standard; People v. Babcock; Consideration of defendant’s physical status; MCL 769.25(6)

On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to life without the possibility of parole for a first-degree felony murder committed when he was 17 years old. It concluded that many of the Skinner factors recommended the sentence, noting the importance of the fact that he “was only three weeks away from his 18th birthday when he chose to go forward with the robbery.” It seemed unlikely that anything would have changed in the last few weeks of his “childhood that would have significantly altered his thought process or decision-making” as to whether to commit it. The circumstances of the crime also supported the sentence. He was the organizer, and knew the house was occupied, but “even after one of his cohorts withdrew from the crime, defendant returned that very night to execute the robbery. Either he or his companion brutally assaulted a pregnant woman and shot her spouse as she lay under a blanket next to him.” Once outside, he lay in the grass trying “to shoot at house occupants exiting the home.” Despite years of contact with the juvenile justice system, his criminal behavior “escalated. He progressed from truancy, to assault, to stealing motor vehicles, and then finally, to committing an armed robbery of a home known to be occupied and to contain weapons.” In doing so, he ignored the likely result—a human being’s death—even though he had “several opportunities to take a second look and abandon the plan.” Although one of his friends withdrew from the plan, “defendant not only moved forward, but berated his friend for refusing to continue. This set of facts could easily lead one to believe that defendant has little hope of rehabilitation . . . .” However, it was clear that he was “raised in an environment that was detrimental to him. His mother was a young, drug-addicted parent who was largely absent from his life.” His father was also mostly absent. Defendant saw physical abuse, and had his own drug use history. His “blindness may make it more difficult for him to commit certain crimes in the future, but it does not necessarily alter his thought processes or proclivity for committing crimes. Nor does it lessen his culpability for the crimes he chose to commit. In sum, this case presented what was likely a close call for the trial court.” Its outcome fell within the range of possible correct ones. Affirmed.