Mich. Ct. R. 3.955

As amended through June 5, 2024

Rule 3.955 - [Effective 10/1/2024] Sentencing or Disposition in Designated Cases

(A) Determining Whether to Sentence or Impose Disposition. If a juvenile is convicted under MCL 712A.2d, sentencing or disposition shall be made as provided in MCL 712A.18(1)(o) and the Crime Victim's Rights Act, MCL 780.751et seq., if applicable. In deciding whether to enter an order of disposition, or impose or delay imposition of sentence, the court shall consider all the following factors, giving greater weight to the seriousness of the offense and the juvenile's prior record:

(1) the seriousness of the alleged offense in terms of community protection, including but not limited to, the existence of any aggravating factors recognized by the sentencing guidelines, the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, and the effect on any victim;

(2) the culpability of the juvenile in committing the alleged offense, including, but not limited to, the level of the juvenile's participation in planning and carrying out the offense and the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors recognized by the sentencing guidelines;

(3) the juvenile's prior record of delinquency including, but not limited to, any record of detention, any police record, any school record, or any other evidence indicating prior delinquent behavior;

(4) the juvenile's programming history, including, but not limited to, the juvenile's past willingness to participate meaningfully in available programming;

(5) the adequacy of the punishment or programming available in the juvenile justice system; and

(6) the dispositional options available for the juvenile.

The court also shall give the juvenile, the juvenile's lawyer, the prosecutor, and the victim an opportunity to advise the court of any circumstances they believe the court should consider in deciding whether to enter an order of disposition or to impose or delay imposition of sentence.

(B) Burden of Proof. After the court has considered the results of the risk and needs assessment pursuant to MCR 3.907, the court shall enter an order of disposition unless the court determines that the best interests of the public would be served by sentencing the juvenile as an adult. The prosecuting attorney has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, on the basis of the criteria in subrule (A), it would be in the best interests of the public to sentence the juvenile as an adult.

(C) Sentencing. If the court determines that the juvenile should be sentenced as an adult, either initially or following a delayed imposition of sentence, the sentencing hearing shall be held in accordance with the procedures set forth in MCR 6.425, including the procedures of MCR 6.425(G) for appointing appellate counsel.

(D) Delayed Imposition of Sentence. If the court determines that the juvenile should be sentenced as an adult, the court may, in its discretion, enter an order of disposition delaying imposition of sentence and placing the juvenile on probation on such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate, including ordering any disposition under MCL 712A.18. A delayed sentence may be imposed in accordance with MCR 3.956.

(E) Disposition Hearing. If the court does not determine that the juvenile should be sentenced as an adult, the court shall hold a dispositional hearing and comply with the procedures set forth in MCR 3.943. Requests for and appointment of appellate counsel are subject to the procedures in MCR 3.993(D).

Mich. Ct. R. 3.955

Last amended effective 12/14/2016; amended May 22, 2024, effective 10/1/2024; amended June 5, 2024, effective 10/1/2024.

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-36): The amendments of MCR 3.901, MCR 3.915, MCR 3.916, MCR 3.922, MCR 3.932, MCR 3.933, MCR 3.935, MCR 3.943, MCR 3.944, MCR 3.950, MCR 3.952, MCR 3.955, MCR 3.977, MCR 6.931, MCR 6.933, and addition of MCR 3.907 implement the Justice for Kids and Communities legislation derived from recommendations made by the Michigan Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform.

The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.

CLEMENT, C.J. (concurring). I wholeheartedly support the Court's adoption of these amendments to implement the Justice for Kids and Communities legislation. I note one potential wrinkle-the amended version of MCL 712A.2f(9)(c) in 2023 SB 428, which was signed into law as 2023 PA 301, states that "[t]he period for a juvenile to complete the terms of a consent calendar case plan must not exceed 3 months . . . ." However, 2024 HB 5393 is currently awaiting passage in the House of Representatives and would change that time limit to six months. Under the amendments to the court rules that our Court now adopts, MCR 3.932(C)(5) refers to the current three-month limit. Should the Legislature extend the time limit to six months, I trust the Court will make a corresponding change to the court rule in an expedited manner.