People v. Parks
| Docket Number | SC 162086 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 2022 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEMO KNICOMBI PARKS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Argued on application for leave to appeal March 2, 2022.
Kemo K Parks was convicted by a jury in the Genesee Circuit Court Celeste D. Bell, J., of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a); carrying a concealed pistol, MCL 750.227(2); and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. In 2016, Parks was 18 years old when his older cousin, Dequavion Harris, shot and killed the victim in the parking lot of a convenience store. According to a witness, prior to the murder, Parks and Harris spoke to each other in low voices and whispers in the back seat of a car parked outside the convenience store. Parks then gave a gun to Harris. Both men entered the store, and Harris exited to the parking lot a short time later. Parks remained inside the store. Thereafter, the victim, who was sitting in his car in the parking lot, was shot and killed. At trial, the prosecution's theory was that Harris and Parks planned to kill the victim in retaliation for the prior murder of Harris's cousin. The prosecution charged Parks with first-degree premeditated murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory. Parks was convicted and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his conviction of first-degree murder, to be served consecutively with the mandatory two-year minimum for felony-firearm and concurrently to 24 to 60 months' imprisonment for his conviction of carrying a concealed pistol. Defendant appealed in the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals consolidated his case with Harris's case. In an unpublished per curiam opinion issued August 13 2020 (Docket Nos. 346586 and 346587), the Court of Appeals Murray, C.J., and Cavanagh and Swartzle, JJ., affirmed Harris's and Parks's convictions and sentences, with the exception of ordering a limited remand in Parks's appeal to redetermine a portion of Parks's restitution order. The Court of Appeals specifically rejected Parks's challenge to his sentence as cruel and/or unusual punishment under the federal and state Constitutions. Parks sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on the application, directing the parties to address whether the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), which held that imposing mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on homicide offenders who were under 18 years old at the time they committed the offense was prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, and Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), which held that Miller applied retroactively, should be applied to defendants who are over 17 years old at the time they commit a crime and who are convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life without parole under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Const 1963, art 1, § 16, or both. 508 Mich. 940 (2021).
In an opinion by Justice Welch, joined by Chief Justice McCormack and Justices Bernstein and Cavanagh, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:
Mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates the principle of proportionality derived from the Michigan Constitution and thus constitutes unconstitutionally cruel punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16; Parks's automatic sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional; and while a judge can still sentence an 18-year-old to life without parole, Parks and other 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder are entitled to the full protections that exist within the individualized sentencing procedure of MCL 769.25 prior to that determination.
1. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Article 1, § 16 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution prohibits cruel or unusual punishment; therefore, Michigan's provision is broader than the federal Eighth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court in Miller held that mandatory life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense was unconstitutional because it precludes consideration of the juvenile's chronological age and its hallmark features-among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. While there was no legal support for extending Miller's protections under the Eighth Amendment, Miller and Montgomery were persuasive to the extent they held that juveniles are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of imposing a life-without-parole sentence, and that general proposition was adopted under the Michigan Constitution. However, United States Supreme Court jurisprudence was not followed to the extent that it drew the line for defining the class of defendants who are entitled to individualized sentencing to those under the age of 18. To determine where to draw the new line under Michigan's constitutional provision, scientific and social-science research regarding the characteristics of the late-adolescent 18-year-old brain was considered. In the punishment context, science has always informed what constitutes "cruel" or "unusual" punishment in regards to certain classes of defendants. Late adolescence-including the age of 18-is a key stage of development characterized by significant brain, behavioral, and psychological change. The key characteristic of the adolescent brain is exceptional neuroplasticity, which is a critical period of cognitive development for young adults that has significant consequences on their behavior. Late adolescents are hampered in their ability to make decisions, exercise self-control, appreciate risks or consequences, feel fear, and plan ahead. Thus, this period of late adolescence is characterized by impulsivity, recklessness, and risk-taking. This period of development also explains why late adolescents are more susceptible to negative outside influences, including peer pressure. Finally, these hallmark features of the developing brain render late adolescents less fixed in their characteristics and more susceptible to change as they age. This evolving understanding of a juvenile's neurological and psychological development is reflected generally in Michigan statutory provisions that treat 18-year-olds differently than other adults.
2. Michigan's Constitution requires that sentencing decisions be proportional. People v Bullock, 440 Mich. 15 (1992), citing People v Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167 (1972), held that courts, in evaluating the proportionality of sentences under the "cruel or unusual punishment" clause, are required to consider (1) the severity of the sentence relative to the gravity of the offense, (2) sentences imposed in the same jurisdiction for other offenses, (3) sentences imposed in other jurisdictions for the same offense, and (4) the goal of rehabilitation, which is a criterion specifically rooted in Michigan's legal traditions. Determining whether the Legislature's chosen sentence runs afoul of the Michigan Constitution's protections is well within the purview of this Court. Under this test, mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants to life in prison, without first considering the attributes of youth, is unusually excessive imprisonment; thus, automatic life without parole for this class of defendants is a disproportionate sentence that constitutes "cruel or unusual punishment" under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. The first factor weighed in favor of finding that the penalty was cruel or unusual. While defendant's crime was serious, the sentence was the most severe sentence available in Michigan, and young persons will inevitably serve more time and spend a greater percentage of their lives behind prison walls than similarly situated older adult offenders. Moreover, because of the dynamic neurological changes that late adolescents undergo as their brains develop over time and essentially rewire themselves, automatic condemnation to die in prison at 18 was cruel. The logic articulated in Miller about why children are different from adults for purposes of sentencing applied in equal force to 18-year-olds. Michigan's sentencing scheme has failed to consider whether any 18-year-old defendants are irreparably corrupt, whether they have the capacity to positively reform as they age, and whether they committed their crime at a time in their life when they lacked the capability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. This was completely contrary to Bullock, which held that for a punishment to be constitutionally proportionate, it must be tailored to a defendant's personal responsibility and moral guilt. The second factor also weighed in favor of finding the penalty cruel or unusual. Because 18-year-old offenders will inevitably spend more time behind prison bars than any other adult offenders convicted of the same crime or similarly severe crimes, this penalty was disproportionate to other offenders in Michigan. Moreover 18-year-old offenders will spend more time in prison than most equally culpable juvenile offenders, who are eligible for term-of-years sentences with the possibility of parole at some point in their adult lives under Miller and MCL 769.25. The third factor was more neutral than the first two, although it weighed slightly in favor of an individualized sentencing procedure for 18-year-old offenders. Excluding Michigan, 17 states and the federal government mandate life without parole for equivalent...
To continue reading
Request your trial