Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
October 21, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack,
Chief Justice
159936 David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem
Stephen J. Markman
In re PAROLE OF FREDERICK WILKINS Brian K. Zahra
_________________________________________ Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth T. Clement
MONROE COUNTY PROSECUTING Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices
ATTORNEY,
Appellee,
v SC: 159936
COA: 344426
Monroe CC: 18-140703-AP
FREDERICK WILKINS,
Appellee,
and
PAROLE BOARD,
Intervenor-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
By order of April 29, 2020, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the
application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2019 judgment and the June 3, 2019 order
of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the
application for leave to appeal is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the June 3, 2019 order of the Court of
Appeals and the May 16, 2019 order of the Monroe Circuit Court, and we REINSTATE
the decision of the Parole Board. It is the judgment of the Parole Board, not the circuit
court, that is entitled to deference in this appeal from the decision of an administrative
agency. The Parole Board did not clearly abuse its discretion or violate the Michigan
Constitution or any statute, rule, or regulation by granting parole in this case. See MCR
7.118(H)(3). Because the prisoner’s parole-guidelines score gave him a high probability
of parole, the Parole Board was required to grant parole absent substantial and
compelling reasons for a departure. See MCL 791.233e(6). The circuit court erred by
ignoring this restriction on the Parole Board’s exercise of its discretion. The circuit court
also impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the Parole Board. After
interviewing the prisoner and conducting a thorough review of his file, the Parole Board
found reasonable assurance that he would not become a menace to society or to the
public safety. See MCL 791.233(1)(a). Further, in light of the detailed mental-health
2
aftercare plan prepared on the prisoner’s behalf, the Parole Board had “satisfactory
evidence that arrangements have been made . . . for the prisoner’s care if the prisoner is
mentally or physically ill or incapacitated.” See MCL 791.233(1)(e). In light of the
record evidence, the Parole Board’s decision to grant parole fell within the range of
principled outcomes and the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the circuit court’s
reversal of the Parole Board’s decision.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
October 21, 2020
t1014
Clerk