People v. Carp
298 Mich. App. 472
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Carp was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, larceny in a building, and larceny of property over $1,000 but under $20,000, and sentenced to life without parole for murder plus other concurrent terms.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals initially affirmed the convictions and sentence; the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal; post-judgment relief and delayed appeal requests followed.
- Carp filed for resentencing after Miller v Alabama (holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional), prompting reconsideration of Miller’s retroactivity.
- The Miller decision held that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment and requires individualized sentencing that accounts for youth.
- The Teague framework governs retroactivity: Miller is a new procedural rule not automatically retroactive to collateral review unless a statutory or watershed exception applies.
- The Michigan Supreme Court held Miller not retroactive on collateral review under Teague, but directed resentencing considerations consistent with Miller, striking down the mandatory life-without-parole provision for juvenile homicide offenders and requiring parole-eligibility assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Miller retroactive to collateral review under Teague? | Carp argues Miller applies retroactively. | State contends Miller is not retroactive. | No; Miller is not retroactive for collateral review. |
| Is Miller a substantive or a procedural rule for retroactivity? | Miller changes substantive punishment of juveniles. | Miller is procedural, not substantive. | Miller is procedural, not substantive. |
| Does Miller apply to Carp’s case given finality and collateral review status? | Miller should apply due to retroactivity. | Miller does not apply because it is not retroactive. | Miller not applicable retroactively to Carp on collateral review. |
| What remedial framework does Michigan adopt post-Miller for juvenile homicide sentencing? | Legislation should be adjusted to grant parole considerations. | Courts should implement Miller through structured guidelines without rewriting statutes. | Michigan must apply Miller’s individualized-sentencing framework and strike the automatic life-without-parole rule for juveniles; Parole Board must respect trial court’s parole-eligibility determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court (2010)) (nonhomicide juvenile life without parole barred; proportionality governs youth sentencing)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court (2005)) (juveniles have diminished culpability; death penalty restricted for juveniles)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (Supreme Court (2012)) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires individualized sentencing)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court (1983)) (proportionality in sentencing; recidivist statutes and individualized considerations)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court (1980)) (recidivist scheme allowed; proportionality not strictly required in all cases)