People v. Boykin

• Docket Number: s. 157738,158695
• Decision Date: 28 July 2022
• Citation: 510 Mich. 171,987 N.W.2d 58
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demariol Dontaye BOYKIN, Defendant-Appellant. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyler Maurice Tate, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

510 Mich. 171

987 N.W.2d 58

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Demariol Dontaye BOYKIN, Defendant-Appellant.

People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Tyler Maurice Tate, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 157738

158695

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued on application for leave to appeal January 12, 2022

Decided July 28, 2022

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Christopher R. Becker, Prosecuting Attorney, and James K. Benison, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people in Docket No. 157738.

F. Randall Karfonta for defendant in Docket No. 157738.

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Kym Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, Jason W. Williams, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Amanda Morris Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people in Docket No. 158695.

Jones Day, Detroit (by Andrew J. Clopton, Amanda K. Rice, Eric A. Nicholson, and Shelbie M. Rose ) and Tyler M. Tate, in propria persona, for defendant in Docket No. 158695.

State Appellate Defender Office and Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan (by Tina N. Olson and Claire Alexis Ward) in Docket Nos. 157738 and 158695, amici curiae.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

OPINION

Bernstein, J.

These consolidated cases concern the sentencing of two individuals who were convicted of first-degree murder for crimes they committed before they turned 18, and who both received term-of-years sentences under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a. In particular, we must decide whether trial courts have an obligation to expressly set forth how a defendant's age at the time a crime was committed might affect the judge's sentencing decision and whether trial courts must consider the distinctive attributes of youth, such as those discussed in Miller v Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), when sentencing a juvenile defendant to a term-of-years sentence. We hold that trial courts must consider a juvenile defendant's youth to be a mitigating factor when sentencing them to term-of-years sentences under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a ; however, we find no basis for requiring trial courts to articulate on the record how a defendant's youth affected the decision. Accordingly, we vacate the judgments of the Court of Appeals to the extent they addressed sentencing issues and remand both cases to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the sentencing courts properly considered defendants’ youth as a mitigating factor.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PEOPLE v BOYKIN

In 2003, when he was 17, defendant Demariol Dontaye Boykin was involved in a fatal shooting. The victim was engaged in a fistfight with one of Boykin's brothers, while Boykin, Boykin's father, and another one of his brothers watched. At one point, believing that the victim had removed an object from a pocket and struck his brother with it, Boykin pulled out a gun. The victim turned and ran but Boykin chased him, firing his gun a few times. The victim was hit by two bullets and fell down. Boykin ran up to the victim and continued to kick and punch him while he was on the ground; his two brothers also joined in the beating. Boykin then tried to shoot the victim again at close range, but the gun misfired, so Boykin hit the victim in the face with the gun before fleeing the scene with his brothers in his father's car. The victim later died in the emergency room.

Boykin was charged with and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316(1)(c), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b.¹ He was initially sentenced to a mandatory term of life without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder, to be served consecutively to a two-year term for felony-firearm. Boykin's convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. People v. Boykin , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 14, 2005 (Docket No. 253224), 2005 WL 1652210 ) ( Boykin I ). Before this action, Boykin also filed a number of unsuccessful postconviction measures to overturn his conviction and sentences.

After Boykin was sentenced in 2003, there were several notable changes in the law that substantively affected sentencing for juvenile defendants. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller , which held that sentencing individuals to mandatory life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed before the age of 18 violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Miller , 567 U.S. at 489, 132 S.Ct. 2455. Four years later, the Supreme Court announced that Miller was a substantive constitutional rule that was retroactive on state collateral review. Montgomery v Louisiana , 577 U.S. 190, 136 S Ct 718, 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016). The Michigan Legislature accounted for these changes by enacting a sentencing scheme that eliminated mandatory life without the possibility of parole for all individuals who were convicted of specific crimes, including first-degree murder, for acts committed while they were juveniles. MCL 769.25 ; MCL 769.25a.²

As a juvenile offender who was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, Boykin was entitled to resentencing under MCL 769.25a. His resentencing took place on October 28, 2016. The prosecution did not move the court to seek a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Instead, the prosecution sought the imposition of a 40- to 60-year sentence, whereas Boykin argued for a 25- to 60-year sentence. After hearing from Boykin and the victim's brother, the trial court agreed with the prosecution and sentenced Boykin to serve 40 to 60 years in prison. Boykin appealed his sentence by right. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split, unpublished decision. People v Boykin , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 20, 2018 (Docket No. 335862), 2018 WL 1404120 ) ( Boykin II ).

Boykin sought leave to appeal in this Court. We directed the Clerk to schedule oral argument at the same session as People v Tate and directed the parties to address:

(1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly held in People v Wines , 323 Mich App 343, 916 N.W.2d 855 (2018), rev'd in nonrelevant part 506 Mich. 954, 950 N.W.2d 252 (2020), that trial courts must consider the distinctive attributes of youth, such as those discussed in Miller ..., when sentencing a minor to a term of years pursuant to MCL 769.25a ; (2) if Wines was correctly decided, whether sentencing judges have an obligation to explicitly set forth their analysis of how the defendant's age impacted their sentencing discretion when proceeding under MCL 769.25a or MCL 769.25 ; and (3) if Wines applies to this case, whether the trial court complied with its requirements, and if it did not, what more the court was required to do. [ People v Boykin , 507 Mich. 960, 960-961, 959 N.W.2d 532 (2021) ].

B. PEOPLE v TATE

Defendant Tyler Maurice Tate was involved in a gang-related shooting when he was 16 years old. Tate, Tyshon Taylor, Brendon Stanton-Lipscomb, and Demetrius Armour were all affiliated with a gang known as the Eastside Ghetto Boys or Rob Gang.³ Tate and Taylor were at the Eastland Mall in Harper Woods on December 26, 2015, when they overheard the victim make a disparaging remark about the Rob Gang. After Stanton-Lipscomb was called and informed of what had happened, Stanton-Lipscomb asked for the victim to be escorted outside, where Stanton-Lipscomb planned to shoot him. Tate then led the victim and another person to the outside of the mall, where Stanton-Lipscomb was hiding. Stanton-Lipscomb shot the victim several times, causing fatal wounds. The other individual escaped without injury.

Tate was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a), making a false report of a felony to police, MCL 750.411a(1)(b), and lying to a police officer in a criminal investigation, MCL 750.479c(2)(d)(i ). He was sentenced on April 24, 2017, under MCL 769.25, which had become law in 2014. As with Boykin, the prosecution did not move to seek a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and instead sought the imposition of a 40- to 60-year sentence, whereas Tate argued for a 25- to 60-year sentence. After hearing from Tate and the victim's mother, the trial court agreed with the prosecution and sentenced Tate to serve 40 to 60 years in prison for his murder conviction, concurrent to one to four years each for his remaining convictions.

Tate appealed his sentence by right. The Court of Appeals affirmed. People v Tate , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 20, 2018 (Docket No. 338360), 2018 WL 4576642 ).

Tate sought leave to appeal in this Court. We directed the Clerk of this Court to schedule oral argument, directing the parties to address the same issues as in Boykin . People v Tate , 507 Mich. 961, 959 N.W.2d 534 (2021).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Sentencing decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

People v Steanhouse , 500 Mich. 453, 471, 902 N.W.2d 327 (2017). An abuse-of-discretion standard recognizes that there may be more than one principled outcome and the trial court may not deviate from that principled range of outcomes. People v Babcock , 469 Mich. 247, 269, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003).

This case also concerns matters of constitutional and statutory interpretation, which are reviewed de novo. People v McKinley , 496 Mich. 410, 414-415, 852 N.W.2d 770 (2014).

III. ANALYSIS

A. SENTENCING AUTHORITY

The Michigan Constitution vests sentencing authority in the Legislature. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 45 ; see also People v Hegwood , 465 Mich. 432, 436, 636 N.W.2d 127 (2001) (citations omitted). "The authority to impose sentences and to administer the sentencing statutes enacted by the Legislature lies with the judiciary." Hegwood , 465 Mich. at 436-437, 636 N.W.2d 127.

Where the Legislature has assigned a range of sentencing outcomes for any given conviction, the...