Makowski v. Governor
495 Mich. 465
| Mich. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff was convicted of first-degree felony murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life without parole in 1988.
- In 2010 the parole board recommended commutation; Governor Granholm signed the commutation on December 22, 2010.
- The Secretary of State affixed the Great Seal and autopenned signatures; the Governor directed the halt of commutation proceedings and revoked it by December 27–31, 2010.
- A new governor took office January 1, 2011; the parole board later voted against commutation and the Governor denied it in April 2011.
- Plaintiff sued contending the commutation was final when signed and irrevocable, and that revocation violated double jeopardy and due process.
- The Court held that commutation finality turns on the Governor’s execution of the last act required by law, and that revocation of a completed commutation is not authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability of pardon powers | Governor’s power is fully executive and nonjusticiable. | Court can interpret constitution to define scope of pardon power. | Justiciable question; Court can interpret scope of pardon power. |
| Separation of powers | Reviewing pardon does not threaten separation of powers. | Court may review executive clemency within constitutional bounds. | Review does not offend separation-of-powers. |
| Finality of commutation | Commution is final when signed, sealed, and delivered to DOC. | Finality may depend on Great Seal or other formalities. | Commution is final when signed, delivered, and affixed with Great Seal; the last act completed. |
| Governor's power to revoke a commutation | Governor may revoke only under conditions; cannot revoke a completed commutation. | Governor may revoke as a matter of clemency powers. | Governor may not revoke a completed commutation. |
| Effect on parole eligibility | Commutation created unconditional parole eligibility; revocation reimposes life without parole. | Parole board controls parole decisions post-commutation. | A valid commutation renders the sentence parole-eligible under jurisdiction of parole board. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (U.S. 1803) (finality of executive actions; last act requirement)
- House Speaker v Governor, 443 Mich 560 (1993) (legislature programs and separation of powers in pardons)
- Nixon v United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (textual commitment to a coordinate branch; constitutional interpretation)
- Goldwater v Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) (judicial standards for political-question questions)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (judicial standards for political questions and justiciability)
- Spafford v. Benzie Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 25 (1904) (pardon validity when facial defects exist)
- Adams v Russell, 169 Mich. 606 (1912) (parole eligibility and discretion)
- Greenholtz v Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (no constitutional right to parole)
- Ex parte Lange, 71 U.S. 163 (1873) (limits on increasing a valid sentence)