Opinion
SC: 163379 COA: 357332
09-08-2023
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Gregory EADS, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of January 4, 2023, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2021 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. The Court of Appeals shall consider whether the defendant is entitled to relief under People v Boykin , 510 Mich. 171, 987 N.W.2d 58 (2022), or People v Stovall , 510 Mich. 301, 987 N.W.2d 85 (2022).
Viviano, J., (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from this Court's order remanding to the Court of Appeals for it to consider whether defendant is entitled to relief under People v Boykin , 510 Mich. 171, 987 N.W.2d 58 (2022), or People v Stovall , 510 Mich. 301, 987 N.W.2d 85 (2022).
In Stovall , the Court held that a sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole for a defendant who committed second-degree murder as a juvenile is unconstitutional. But defendant in the present case received a term-of-years sentence for his second-degree murder conviction. Furthermore, for the reasons stated in Justice ZAHRA ’s dissent in Stovall , 510 Mich. at 362, 987 N.W.2d 85, I do not believe the majority in that case properly applied the test for determining whether a sentence is constitutionally proportionate that this Court established in People v Lorentzen , 387 Mich. 167, 194 N.W.2d 827 (1972), and People v Bullock , 440 Mich. 15, 485 N.W.2d 866 (1992). I would not remand this case to the Court of Appeals for it to apply what I believe is a flawed analysis of the Lorentzen / test.
In Boykin , the Court held that "trial courts must consider a juvenile defendant's youth to be a mitigating factor when sentencing [him or her] to term-of-years sentences under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a" but that a court is not required to "articulate on the record how a defendant's youth affected the decision." Boykin , 510 Mich. at 178, 987 N.W.2d 58. However, defendant in the present case was not sentenced under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a, and Boykin did not broadly hold that trial courts must consider youth to be a mitigating factor in all sentencing proceedings.
For these reasons, I would deny leave to appeal.
Zahra, J., joins the statement of Viviano, J.