Sentencing; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; MCL 769.34(10); Waiver; Mandatory revocation of probation under MCL 712A.18i(9); Imposition of a life imprisonment maximum sentence for second-degree murder where a term of years was imposed as the minimum sentence; MCL 769.9(2); Parolable life sentence for a defendant who commits second-degree murder while a juvenile; People v Stovall

While the court rejected respondent-former juvenile’s appellate arguments and affirmed his 225-month minimum sentence for second-degree murder, it reversed and remanded as to his maximum life sentence. That sentence was not available where a term of years was imposed as his minimum sentence. Further, under Stovall, “‘a parolable life sentence for a defendant who commits second-degree murder while a juvenile’” constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. Respondent was 16 years old when he shot and killed his mother’s boyfriend. He pled guilty to second-degree murder and under guidelines calculated in 2017, received “a delayed adult sentence with a minimum of 225 months in prison and a maximum of life imprisonment” and probation. He violated probation and committed new crimes, leading to imposition of the sentences at issue here. His guidelines range was 270 to 450 months or life imprisonment but the prosecution indicated it “would not challenge ‘any sentencing that would be at 225 months.’” The court noted he did not raise any claim of scoring error, or “assert that the trial court relied on inaccurate information;” thus, affirming his minimum sentence was appropriate under MCL 769.34(10). Further, his “attorney requested a minimum sentence ‘toward the lower end of the sentencing range.’ Under the 2017 guidelines range, the very bottom end of the range was 225 months’ imprisonment; consequently, respondent received exactly as requested, rendering the appellate arguments waived.” The court also noted that to the extent he now asserted “the trial court should have contemplated extending respondent’s probation instead of imposing a prison sentence,” MCL 712A.18i(9) mandated that the trial court revoke probation. But under MCL 769.9(2), it “could not impose a minimum sentence of a term of years with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.” Finally, in light of “Stovall, the trial court no longer has the authority to impose a life sentence on respondent because it would constitute cruel or unusual punishment.” As a result, the court was compelled to reverse his life imprisonment maximum sentence “and remand for resentencing for imposition of a maximum sentence in the form of a term of years.”