Juvenile sentencing; The trial court’s option to impose either a juvenile disposition, an adult sentence, or a blended sentence; People v Petty; Delayed sentence; MCL 712A.18(1)(o); Consideration of the rehabilitation-&-risk factors in MCL 712A.18i(3); MCL 712A.18i(7), (9), & (10); Assault with intent to rob while armed (AWIR)

The court held that the trial court did not err by sentencing respondent-juvenile to prison without first considering the rehabilitation-and-risk factors set forth in MCL 712A.18i(3) when he had violated probation. He pled no contest to AWIM and AWIR for shooting the victim (who became paralyzed) during an attempted sale of a Play Station. After he later admitted to two probation violations, the trial court sentenced him to prison. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by doing so without first considering the rehabilitation-and-risk factors set forth in MCL 712A.18i(3). First, “neither subsection (9) nor (10) references the rehabilitation-and-risk factors of subsection (3). This is in contradistinction to subsection (7), which does direct a trial court to consider the rehabilitation-and-risk factors of subsection (3) when performing a final review. Thus, when our Legislature intended for a trial court to consider those rehabilitation-and-risk factors at a particular stage of the proceeding, it explicitly said so.” Second, it is clear that the “Legislature considered it superfluous to direct a trial court to consider a juvenile’s progress toward rehabilitation and risk to society when that juvenile has, in fact, actually violated probation.” Although nothing precludes “a trial court from considering those factors when deciding whether to revoke probation and impose a sentence of imprisonment under subsection (10), there is likewise nothing requiring that” it do so. As such, the “plain language of MCL 712A.18i(10) permitted the trial court to revoke probation and impose sentence once it found that respondent committed a probation violation. Once a probation violation is established under subsection (9) or (10), the trial court need not consider the rehabilitation factors outlined in subsection (3) (or the additional factors under” subsection (7). And there was “no claim that the trial court failed to engage in review hearings prior to the combined probation-violation and review hearing, and it is clear from the record that the trial court was aware of the full context of respondent’s offenses and history. [He] acknowledges on appeal that [it] articulated the reasons for its sentence.” Affirmed.