People v. People

• Decision Date: 08 July 2014
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 146478,6.,146819,5,147428.,Calendar Nos. 4
• Citation: 852 N.W.2d 801,496 Mich. 440
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CARP People v. Davis People v. Eliason
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

496 Mich. 440

852 N.W.2d 801

PEOPLE

v.CARP

People

v.Davis

People

v.Eliason

Docket Nos. 146478, 146819, 147428.

Calendar Nos. 4, 5, 6.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued March 6, 2014.

Decided July 8, 2014.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Michael D. Wendling, Prosecuting Attorney, and Hilary B. Georgia, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people in Carp.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, for the people in Davis.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Michael J. Sepic, Prosecuting Attorney, and Elizabeth A. Wild, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people in Eliason.

Selby Law Firm, PLLC (by Patricia L. Selby, Grosse), for Raymond C. Carp.

Hubbell DuVall PLLC, Southfield, (by Clinton J. Hubbell) and Bryan A. Stevenson for Cortez R. Davis.

State Appellate Defender (by Jonathan Sacks and Brett DeGroff) for Dakotah Wolfgang Eliason.

Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, for the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney in Eliason.

Miller Johnson (by Jon R. Muth and Patrick M. Jaicomo, Grand Rapids) for 450 students of Father Gabriel Richard High School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Daniel S. Korobkin, Michael J. Steinberg, and Kary L. Moss for the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan in Carp.

Baker & McKenzie LLP (by Sarah Winston) for numerous victims of crime and victims' rights organizations.

Covington & Burling LLP (by Sarah E. Tremont, Brendan Parets, and Krysten Rosen) for numerous faith-based organizations and religious leaders.

Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (by Mitra Jafary–Hariri) and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (by Jin Hee Lee and Vincent M. Sutherland), for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC (by Thomas W. Cranmer and Paul D. Hudson), for an ad hoc committee made up of former officials of the Department of Corrections; numerous correctional, penological, mental health, community, and justice organizations; and individual criminal-justice experts in Carp and Davis.

Schiff Hardin LLP (by Robert J. Wierenga, Kimberly K. Kefalas, Suzanne Larimore Wahl, and Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff) for an ad hoc committee made up of former prosecuting attorneys, former judges, former governmental officials, and various leaders of bar associations, law school deans, and law school professors in Carp and Davis.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, and B. Eric Restuccia, Deputy Solicitor General, for the Attorney General in Carp.

Juvenile Law Center (by Marsha L. Levick) and Rhoades McKee PC (by Bruce W. Neckers) for the Juvenile Law Center and numerous organizations and individuals.

Stuart G. Friedman for the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan in Carp.

Kimberly Thomas for the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan in Davis.

State Appellate Defender (by Michael L. Mittlestat and Erin Van Campen) for the State Appellate Defender Office in Carp.

MARKMAN, J.

We granted leave to appeal to address (1) whether Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), should be applied retroactively—pursuant to either the federal or state test for retroactivity—to cases in which the defendant's sentence became final for purposes of direct appellate review before Miller was decided and (2) whether the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Const. 1963, art. 1, § 16 categorically bars the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender. After considering these matters, we hold that the rule announced in Miller does not satisfy either the federal test for retroactivity set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), or Michigan's separate and independent test for retroactivity set forth in People v. Sexton, 458 Mich. 43, 580 N.W.2d 404 (1998), and People v. Maxson, 482 Mich. 385, 759 N.W.2d 817 (2008). We further hold that neither the Eighth Amendment nor Const. 1963, art. 1, § 16 categorically bars the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender.

I. FACTS AND HISTORY

A. DEFENDANT CARP

Defendant Raymond Carp was 15 years of age when he participated in the 2006 bludgeoning and stabbing of Mary Ann McNeely in Casco Township. He was charged with first-degree murder in violation of MCL 750.316 and tried as an adult. On October 5, 2006, a St. Clair County jury convicted Carp of this offense, and in accordance with the law he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Carp's conviction was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals, People v. Carp, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 30, 2008 (Docket No. 275084), 2008 WL 5429890, and his application for leave to appeal in this Court was denied on June 23, 2009, People v. Carp, 483 Mich. 1111, 766 N.W.2d 839 (2009). Because Carp did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court, his conviction and sentence became final for the purposes of direct appellate review on June 23, 2009.

In September 2010, Carp sought to collaterally attack the constitutionality of his sentence by filing a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to MCR 6.501 et seq. The trial court denied this motion, concluding that the imposition of a mandatory sentence of life without parole on a juvenile first-degree-murder offender did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, citing People v. Launsburry, 217 Mich.App. 358, 363–365, 551 N.W.2d 460 (1996), lv. den. 454 Mich. 883, 562 N.W.2d 203 (1997), and recon. den. 454 Mich. 883, 564 N.W.2d 900 (1997). Carp then sought leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 8, 2012. People v. Carp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 8, 2012 (Docket No. 307758). Seventeen days later, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller, leading Carp to move for reconsideration, and the Court of Appeals granted his motion. People v. Carp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 9, 2012 (Docket No. 307758). On reconsideration, the Court determined that Miller had created a “new rule” that was “procedural” in nature and therefore not subject to retroactive application under the rules set forth in Teague. People v. Carp, 298 Mich.App. 472, 511–515, 828 N.W.2d 685 (2012). The Court further held that Miller was not subject to retroactive application under Michigan's separate test for retroactivity set forth in Sexton and Maxson.¹Id. at 520–522, 828 N.W.2d 685. This Court subsequently granted Carp leave to appeal with respect to whether Miller should be applied retroactively under either federal or state law. People v. Carp, 495 Mich. 890, 838 N.W.2d 878 (2013).

B. DEFENDANT DAVIS

Defendant Cortez Davis, age 16 at the time of his offense, and one of his cohorts, while both brandishing firearms, accosted two individuals in Detroit for the purpose of robbery.² Two witnesses testified that when one of the victims attempted to flee, Davis and his cohort fired five or six shots, killing the victim. Davis was charged with felony first-degree murder in violation of MCL 750.316(1)(b) and convicted by a jury in the former Recorders Court for the City of Detroit (now part of the Wayne Circuit Court) on this charge on May 10, 1994.

At sentencing, the trial court initially ruled that Michigan's statutory sentencing scheme for first-degree murder could not constitutionally be applied to juvenile homicide offenders because it was “cruel and unusual” to impose a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile who was “capable of rehabilitation.” In concluding that Davis was such an individual, the court surmised that Davis's role in the commission of the offense was that of an aider and abettor, not an actual shooter. The court, however, did not make any finding concerning Davis's intentions with respect to the fleeing victim or whether he reasonably foresaw the possibility that a life might be taken when he initially engaged in the armed robbery. The trial court thereupon sentenced Davis to a term of imprisonment of 10 to 40 years.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing pursuant to Michigan's statutory sentencing scheme, People v. Davis, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 23, 1994 (Docket No. 176985), and at resentencing, the trial court imposed the required sentence of life without parole. Direct appellate review of defendant's conviction and sentence concluded in 2000. People v. Davis, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 15, 2000 (Docket No. 224046).³

In 2010, Davis filed his current motion for relief from judgment, contending that Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), constituted a “retroactive change in the law” in that it categorically barred life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses. Concluding, however, that felony murder is in fact a “homicide offense,” even when the defendant is not the actual shooter but an aider and abettor, the trial court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals denied Davis's application for leave to appeal. People v. Davis, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 16, 2011 (Docket No. 304075). While Davis's application for leave to appeal in this Court was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller. In light of Miller, Davis's case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether Miller applied retroactively. People v. Davis, 492 Mich. 871, 820 N.W.2d 167 (2012). On remand, the trial court concluded that Miller did apply retroactively, entitling Davis to be resentenced. The prosecutor then appealed,...