Sentencing; Mandatory life without parole (LWOP); Equal protection; MCL 750.316; Cruel or unusual punishment; People v Lorentzen; People v Parks; People v Adamowicz; People v Czarnecki; Miller v Alabama

The court noted it was “bound by our Supreme Court’s decision in Parks, as well as this Court’s decisions in Adamowicz and Czarnecki, to conclude that defendant’s sentence of mandatory LWOP [was] not cruel nor unusual punishment under the law and as applied to defendant because [he] was 22 years old at the time he committed these crimes.” Defendant claimed “that treating defendants aged 19 to 25 differently than 18-year-olds for sentencing purposes is arbitrary.” The court held that he “must show that there is no rational basis for treating those aged 19-25 differently under the law.” It concluded that while he “has shown that he is treated differently than 18-year-old defendants when it comes to mandatory LWOP, he has not shown that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” The court noted that as “stated in Parks, a defendant aged 18 or younger may still be sentenced to LWOP, but it is not mandatory under MCL 769.25, as it is for those over the age of 18.” Rather, a “sentencing judge must consider the Miller factors before sentencing a defendant aged 18 or younger to LWOP.” This classification is “rationally related to the state’s interest in individualized consideration of the mitigating factors of youth when a defendant is 18 and under.” The court held that defendant “has not shown that MCL 750.316 violates equal protection.” Defendant next argued “that MCL 750.316, providing for mandatory LWOP for defendants 19 years old and older, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him.” He argued “that the Michigan Constitution also prohibits mandatory LWOP for defendants up to age 25. But the holding in Parks was specifically limited to defendants age 18 and under, (‘[O]ur opinion only applies to 18-year-olds.’).” Further, the court “has held that mandatory LWOP for 19-year-olds is constitutional,” as well as for 21-year-olds. Thus, defendant’s facial challenge found no support in case law. But the court noted that “even if the Supreme Court extended Parks to 20-year-olds, defendant would not be among that class of offenders because he was 22 years old at the time he committed the crimes. And until the Supreme Court extends Parks to those 22 years old at the time of their offenses, we are bound to conclude that mandatory LWOP is constitutional for defendants over the age of 18.” The court concluded that when “defendant’s claim of cruel or unusual punishment is analyzed as applied to him, according to the Lorentzen factors, it also fails.” In sum, it found that “the Lorentzen factors do not favor finding defendant’s sentence of mandatory LWOP as violative of the Cruel or Unusual Punishment Clause.” Affirmed.