950 N.W.2d 252
Mich.2020Background
- Defendant Gregory Wines, convicted in Kent County of first-degree murder (and related armed robbery and kidnapping convictions) for crimes committed as a juvenile; resentencing occurred under Michigan’s Miller‑era statutes (MCL 769.25 / 769.25a).
- The Michigan Court of Appeals held that when sentencing a juvenile to a term‑of‑years (where life without parole was not at issue), trial courts are required to take into account the "attributes of youth" described in Miller and that failure to do so is reversible error.
- The prosecutor sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeals decision; Wines cross‑appealed arguing the trial court could revisit his robbery and kidnapping sentences at the Miller resentencing.
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal (declining to review whether Miller requires consideration for term‑of‑years sentences), with separate opinions noting disagreement among justices.
- The Court, however, granted relief to Wines as cross‑appellant in lieu of leave: it reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals judgment limiting review of Wines’ robbery and kidnapping sentences and remanded so the trial court may consider and, if warranted, resentence those convictions at the Miller resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller’s requirements (attributes of youth) must be applied when sentencing a juvenile to a term‑of‑years under MCL 769.25a where the prosecutor did not seek life without parole | People: No — Miller’s constitutional holding and the implementing statute require Miller consideration only when a LWOP motion is filed; no obligation for term‑of‑years sentences | Wines: Yes — the trial court must account for the distinctive attributes of youth at resentencing for first‑degree murder even if LWOP is not at issue; failure is reversible error | Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the prosecutor’s challenge (declined to resolve the statewide question); lower‑court ruling applying youth attributes remains not reviewed by this Court |
| Whether the trial court at a Miller resentencing may consider and resentence the defendant’s separate armed robbery and kidnapping sentences | People: Those issues were beyond the scope of the Miller resentencing and/or not properly before the court | Wines: The trial court has authority at resentencing to consider and, if appropriate, resentence related convictions whose sentences may have been based on a misconception about mandatory LWOP | In lieu of granting leave, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this point and remanded: the trial court may consider and exercise discretion to resentence robbery and kidnapping convictions, particularly if prior sentences rested on a legal misconception that LWOP was mandatory for the greater offense (citing Turner) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment and enumerating youth‑related sentencing considerations)
- People v. Wines, 323 Mich. App. 343 (2018) (Court of Appeals: trial courts must consider attributes of youth when sentencing juveniles to term‑of‑years; failure is reversible error)
- People v. Turner, 505 Mich. 954 (2020) (Michigan Supreme Court order/decision addressing scope of resentencing authority under Miller‑era statutes)
- People v. Snow, 386 Mich. 586 (1972) (describing traditional penological goals that guide sentencing)