Youthful Offenders and Constitutional Sentencing in Michigan

One of the fast-changing legal topics in Michigan is the area of sentencing and re-sentencing of youthful offenders for serious crimes.

Youthful Offenders and Constitutional Sentencing in Michigan

This started with the United States Supreme Court case of Miller v. Alabama.

Miller held that juveniles (those under 18) could not be sentenced to mandatory life in prison (LWOP) without first receiving a special hearing in which a judge would consider various factors related to the person’s youth. In that hearing, there is a presumption that the youthful offender should not receive LWOP. These hearings are referred as Miller Hearings. 

Fast forward to today, the Michigan Supreme Court has expanded the protections for not only juveniles but also youthful offenders under 21. Specifically, the Court has held:

• Mandatory LWOP is unconstitutional for 18-year-olds
• Mandatory LWOP is unconstitutional for 19-year-olds
• Mandatory LWOP is unconstitutional for 20-year-olds
• Parolable life sentences are unconstitutional for juveniles
• A 50 – 75 years sentence is unconstitutional for offenders under 21-years-old

These rulings apply retroactively, meaning that an offender who has already been sentenced can seek relief in the circuit court. 

People v. Eads

The most recent youthful offender ruling came from the case of People v. Eads. In Eads, the Court held that an indeterminate sentence of 50 – 75 years was categorically barred for youthful offenders. Such a sentence is unconstitutional.

The Court declined to take a position on what a de facto life sentence might be, but for now we know that a 50 – 75 year sentence for a youthful offender will not pass constitutional muster. 

What Sentence Would a Defendant Receive if not LWOP?

A person under 21 can still receive a sentence of life without parole. However, they are entitled to a Miller Hearing first. What would the sentence be if the person convicted of first-degree murder did not receive LWOP?

In that situation, the person would receive a sentence with a minimum between 25 and 40 years, with a maximum sentence of no more than 60 years. This can be considered the default sentence that a person would receive – but a youthful person convicted of first-degree murder can still receive a life without parole sentence, it’s just that the sentence is no longer mandatory. 

Note that the 50 – 75 year sentence in People v. Eads had a minimum number that was higher than the minimum a person could receive for a term-of-years sentence for first-degree murder. The maximum number in the Eads sentence was also higher than the maximum number a person could receive for a term-of-years sentence for first-degree murder. 

People v. Eads Will Apply to More Offenses than Second-Degree Murder

The case of People v. Eads involved a gentleman convicted of second-degree murder. However, Eads could probably be read to include high-number sentences for crimes in addition to second-degree murder. 

For example, it’s possible that a person convicted of a serious offense such as criminal sexual conduct or armed robbery could also have received a high-number sentence similar to the 50 – 75 years that Mr. Eads received. Any past offender who received such a high sentence can likely seek relief under the Eads decision. 

ArborYpsi Law Represents Juvenile Offenders

At ArborYpsi Law, we absolutely believe that children should not be sentenced to die in prison. This is not what a just and humane society should ever do, no matter what. We are proud to represent juvenile and youthful offenders who have been sentenced to life in prison and deserve a second chance now that this injustice has been corrected. 

Contact ArborYpsi Law if you have any questions.