People v. McKinley
| Decision Date | 20 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 147391.,COA No. 307360. |
| Citation | 839 N.W.2d 201,495 Mich. 897 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Matthew Charles McKINLEY a/k/a Jeffrey Alan Newbold, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Prior report: Mich.App., 2013 WL 2120278.
On order of the Court, the motion for permission to file an in propria persona supplement is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 16, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issues: (1) whether an order of restitution is equivalent to a criminal penalty, and (2) whether Michigan's statutory restitution scheme is unconstitutional insofar as it permits the trial court to order restitution based on uncharged conduct that was not submitted to a jury or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Southern Union Co. v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2344, 183 L.Ed.2d 318 (2012); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); contra People v. Gahan, 456 Mich. 264, 571 N.W.2d 503 (1997).
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mckinley
...The Court of Appeals vacated the defendant's conviction for larceny over $20,000, but otherwise affirmed his convictions and sentences. People v. McKinley, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 16, 2013 (Docket No. 307360), 2013 WL 2120278. The panel rejected th......
-
People v. Foster
...that was not submitted to a jury or proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " McKinley , 496 Mich. at 414, 852 N.W.2d 770, quoting McKinley , 495 Mich. 897 (2013). The McKinley Court avoided the latter constitutional question and rather determined that MCL 780.766(2) did not grant trial courts a......