Opinion
SC: 162579 COA: 354532.
03-31-2023
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of November 4, 2022, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2020 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. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of People v Stovall, 510 Mich. 301, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2022).
Zahra, J. (concurring).
This Court held in People v Stovall, 510 Mich. 301, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2022), that a parolable life sentence for a juvenile offender convicted of second-degree murder violates Michigan's prohibition against "cruel or unusual" punishment, Const. 1963, art. 1, § 16. While I continue to believe Stovall was wrongly decided, it is now the law of this state. Defendant was sentenced to parolable life in prison for a nonhomicide offense that he committed when he was under the age of 18. Because defendant may be entitled to relief under the majority opinion in Stovall, I concur with the remand to the trial court for reconsideration in light of that opinion.
For the reasons stated in my dissent in Stovall, 510 Mich. at 338, 343, nn 24 & 25, ___ N.W.2d at ___, ___, nn 24 & 25, I would also revisit our caselaw interpreting Const. 1963, art. 1, § 16—specifically, whether Article 1, § 16 provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and whether Article 1, § 16 contains a proportionality guarantee.
Viviano, J. (dissenting).
For the reasons stated in my dissent in People v Stovall, 510 Mich. 301, 362, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (2022), I do not believe defendant has overcome the procedural bar to file a successive motion for relief from judgment and would deny leave to appeal under MCR 6.502(G). Even if defendant could overcome the procedural bar, for the reasons stated in Justice ZAHRA's dissent in Stovall, 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 trial court for reconsideration in light of what I believe is a flawed analysis of the Lorentzen/Bullock test. Furthermore, for the reasons stated in Stovall, 510 Mich. at 338, 343, nn 24 & 25, ___ N.W.2d at ___, ___, nn 24 & 25 (ZAHRA, J., dissenting), I believe that in an appropriate future case, we should revisit our caselaw interpreting Const. 1963, art. 1, § 16 holding (1) that the provision provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and (2) that the provision contains a proportionality component. I respectfully dissent and would deny leave to appeal.