Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus
Chief Justice: Justices:
Bridget M. McCormack Brian K. Zahra
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth T. Clement
Megan K. Cavanagh
Elizabeth M. Welch
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions:
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kathryn L. Loomis
PEOPLE v BOYKIN
PEOPLE v TATE
Docket Nos. 157738 and 158695. Argued on application for leave to appeal January 12,
2022. Decided July 28, 2022.
In Docket No. 157738, Demariol D. Boykin was 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. 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. His convictions and sentences were affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion
of the Court of Appeals, issued July 14, 2005 (Docket No. 253224) (Boykin I). Subsequently, the
United States Supreme Court decided Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460 (2012), which held that
sentencing an individual to mandatory life without the possibility of parole for a crime they
committed before the age of 18 (a juvenile offender) violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on
cruel and unusual punishments and that trial courts are required to consider the attributes of youth
when sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole. In Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US
190 (2016), the Supreme Court held that Miller was a substantive constitutional rule that was
retroactive on state collateral review. The Michigan Legislature accounted for these changes by
enacting MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a, which eliminated sentences of mandatory life
imprisonment 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. 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. At resentencing, the prosecution
did not move to seek a sentence of life without parole but instead sought a sentence of 40 to 60
years’ imprisonment, which the trial court imposed. Boykin appealed this sentence by right. The
Court of Appeals, MARKEY, P.J., and GADOLA, JJ. (SHAPIRO, J., dissenting), affirmed in an
unpublished per curiam opinion issued March 20, 2018 (Docket No. 335862), holding that because
the prosecutor had not sought a sentence of life without parole, the trial court was not required to
consider defendant’s youth when imposing sentence. Boykin sought leave to appeal in the
Supreme Court, which directed and heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal.
507 Mich 960 (2021).
In Docket No. 158695, Tyler M. 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 but instead
sought the imposition of a 40- to 60-year sentence, which the trial court imposed. Tate appealed
his sentence by right, and the Court of Appeals, M. J. KELLY, P.J., and MARKEY and FORT HOOD,
JJ., affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion issued September 20, 2018 (Docket No.
338360). Tate sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which directed oral argument on the
application for leave to appeal. 507 Mich 961 (2021).
In an opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, joined by Chief Justice MCCORMACK and Justices
CLEMENT (except as to Part IV(B)), CAVANAGH, and WELCH, the Supreme Court, in lieu of
granting leave to appeal, held:
Sentencing courts must consider a juvenile offender’s youth as a mitigating factor at
sentencing hearings conducted under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a when the juvenile offender is
sentenced to a term of years. However, this consideration need not be articulated on the record.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct when it held that there is no constitutional mandate to
make specific findings on the record as to the Miller factors when a juvenile offender is sentenced
to a term of years but that sentencing courts should be guided by the factors set forth in People v
Snow, 386 Mich 586 (1972). Consideration of the Snow factors necessarily includes the
consideration of youth as a mitigating factor. Because it is unclear whether the trial courts properly
considered youth to be mitigating in either of these consolidated cases, yet the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial courts’ sentencing decisions, the portions of both Court of Appeals opinions
discussing defendants’ sentencing challenges were vacated and the cases were remanded to the
Court of Appeals for further consideration.
1. Where the Legislature has assigned a range of sentencing outcomes for any given
conviction, the trial court has authority to sentence a defendant within that range. Within that
range, the sentence should be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case and offender. It
is the trial court’s duty to exercise discretion in a way that ensures the individualized sentence
conforms with the principle of proportionality set forth in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 651
(1990). Under Snow, an appropriate sentence should give consideration to the reformation of the
offender, the protection of society, the discipline of the offender, and the deterrence of others from
committing the same offense. Within each of the two statutes at issue in these cases, MCL 769.25
and MCL 769.25a, there is a range of sentencing outcomes. Unless the prosecution moves to
sentence a defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole, juvenile defendants who are
convicted of certain enumerated acts may receive a minimum sentence of 25 to 40 years and a
maximum sentence of 60 years.
2. The Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments requires courts to think
differently about how juvenile offenders are sentenced. Since Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551
(2005), which held that the death penalty is an unconstitutional punishment for a juvenile offender
, the Supreme Court has been clear that juvenile status matters at sentencing and that special
consideration must be paid to youthful offenders before the harshest sentences may be imposed.
The Roper Court explained that juvenile offenders have diminished culpability because they lack
maturity and a developed sense of responsibility, are more vulnerable to negative influences and
outside pressures, and do not yet have a well-formed character. Applying this same logic, the
Supreme Court held in Graham v Florida, 560 US 48 (2010), that sentences of life without the
possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders who did not commit homicide,
noting that juvenile offenders are at a significant disadvantage in criminal proceedings because of
the characteristics discussed in Roper. In Miller, the Supreme Court applied the logic and rationale
from Roper and Graham that children are different from adults for purposes of sentencing in the
context of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for homicide offenses, explaining that the
characteristics of youth and the way they weaken rationales for punishments may render a sentence
of life without the possibility of parole disproportionate even for a homicide offense. Therefore,
when sentencing juvenile offenders to sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole, trial courts are required to take into account how children are different and how those
differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.
3. Consideration of youth and its attendant circumstances is required by Michigan’s
sentencing jurisprudence. Michigan’s sentencing caselaw focuses on Milbourn’s principle of
proportionality, which requires sentences imposed to be proportionate to the seriousness of the
circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender. Because the United States Supreme Court
has held that youth—a circumstance of the offender—matters at sentencing, Michigan caselaw
requires that this relevant offender characteristic must be considered at sentencing. In Snow, the
Michigan Supreme Court expressed the importance of four basic sentencing considerations:
reformation of the offender, the protection of society, disciplining of the wrongdoer, and deterring
others from committing similar offenses. Without considering the mitigating factors of youth, a
sentence cannot adequately address any of these factors. Therefore, in all sentencing hearings
conducted under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a, trial courts are to consider the defendant’s youth
and must treat it as a mitigating factor. However, there is no constitutional, statutory, or common-
law requirement that this consideration be stated on the record. Therefore, trial courts need not
articulate their bases for considering an offender’s youth during sentencing hearings conducted
under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a in which the offender is sentenced to a term of years.
4. In Boykin II, the Court of Appeals held that consideration of Boykin’s youth was
unnecessary because Miller only pertained to defendants who are sentenced to serve life without
the possibility of parole, and the majority never addressed whether the trial court properly
considered youth to be a mitigating factor when Boykin was sentenced. Accordingly, that opinion
was vacated and the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider that question. In Tate,
rather than rejecting Tate’s arguments, the Court of Appeals applied People v Wines, 323 Mich
App 343 (2018), rev’d in nonrelevant part 506 Mich 954 (2020), which held that trial courts must
consider the distinctive attributes of youth when sentencing a minor to a term of years pursuant to
MCL 769.25a. The panel identified ways in which it believed the trial court gave consideration to
Tate’s attributes of youth; however, the examples appeared to only represent a small portion of the
record established by the sentencing court, and it was not clear that defendant’s youth was
considered a mitigating factor rather than an aggravating factor. Although trial courts are not
required to make a record that they considered each mitigating factor listed in Miller, whether the
totality of the record established by the trial court complied with the requirement that a trial court
consider youth to be a mitigating factor was a close question deserving of additional appellate
review. Accordingly, Part V of the Court of Appeals opinion, which discussed Tate’s sentence,
was vacated and the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals judgments vacated in part; cases remanded to the Court of Appeals for
further consideration.
Chief Justice MCCORMACK, concurring, fully agreed with the majority opinion but wrote
separately to comment on the majority’s conclusion that the Michigan Constitution does not
require a trial court to articulate on the record how it considered the mitigating characteristics of
youth when it sentences a juvenile defendant to a sentence other than life without the possibility
of parole. She noted that the Michigan Constitution was not mentioned in these cases until Tate
argued in a supplemental brief that his 40-year minimum sentence was disproportionate under
Const 1963, art 1, § 16 and that this provision requires an on-the-record explanation of how the
mitigating characteristics of youth affected the trial court’s sentencing decision. While neither the
statutory scheme nor the federal Constitution categorically requires an on-the-record articulation
of how the characteristics of youth affect a sentencing court’s decision, the majority correctly held
that sentencing courts must consider those characteristics and treat them as mitigating. A trial
court’s failure to do so explicitly on the record, notwithstanding the absence of a categorical rule
requiring an on-the-record articulation, stands a high chance of rendering its sentence a violation
of Const 1963, art 1, § 16, and therefore an abuse of its discretion. The principles animating Miller,
Graham, and Roper, together with Michigan precedent requiring individualized sentencing, may
render a sentence where the effect of youth is unexplained at such high risk of violating those
principles as to be constitutionally impermissible.
Justice CLEMENT, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the majority that
trial courts are required to consider the mitigating effects of youth when sentencing a juvenile to a
term-of-years sentence because youth affects the traditional penological goals that guide a
sentencer’s discretion. However, she dissented as to the majority’s application of that rule to Tate
because the trial court’s record of its decision-making sufficiently justified the sentence imposed
in order to facilitate appellate review, which is the sole articulation requirement mandated by
Michigan’s sentencing jurisprudence. The majority’s decision to remand this case to the Court of
Appeals for reconsideration muddied, if not contradicted, the majority’s holding that no statutory
or constitutional authority compels the trial court to make an on-the-record explanation of its
consideration of youth. To the extent that the majority believed that Tate was deserving of a shorter
minimum sentence because of the mitigating effects of youth, that was a proportionality issue that
should have been addressed at this stage and not remanded to the Court of Appeals, which already
considered and rejected Tate’s proportionality argument.
Justice ZAHRA, joined by Justice VIVIANO, dissenting, stated that Miller’s holding does not
cover a lengthy term of imprisonment that falls short of life without parole, and given the absence
of a constitutional, statutory, or precedential basis to do so, he would not have extended Miller’s
reasoning to term-of-years sentences under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. He noted that the
holding in Miller was limited to correcting the constitutional infirmity of sentencing schemes
mandating life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders by requiring that sentencers be given
the opportunity to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and the discretion to impose a lesser
sentence, but that neither Miller nor its progeny required sentencers to consider the distinctive
attributes of a juvenile homicide offender’s youth when imposing a sentence less than life without
parole. Further, MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a do not require sentencing courts to consider
mitigating qualities of youth when sentencing a juvenile homicide offender to a term of years, and
the Legislature’s omission of this requirement was presumed to be an intentional policy choice
that the judiciary may not second-guess or override. By enacting MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a,
the Legislature put in place a scheme that necessarily accounts for a juvenile homicide offender’s
youth, even when the sentence imposed is a term of years. Moreover, while courts fashioning a
proportionate sentence must take into account an offender’s background, there was no basis in
Milbourn to require that a trial judge tailor every defendant’s sentence in relationship to the
defendant’s age. Given that sentencing courts are not required to articulate an on-the-record
explanation of how youth or the Miller factors affect a term-of-years sentence imposed under MCL
769.25 or MCL 769.25a, there was no legal basis for affirming the Court of Appeals decision in
Wines. Justice ZAHRA would have held that traditional sentencing considerations should apply
when the sentence to be imposed on a juvenile homicide offender is less than life without parole,
and he would have affirmed defendants’ 40- to 60-year sentences.
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
OPINION
Chief Justice: Justices:
Bridget M. McCormack Brian K. Zahra
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth T. Clement
Megan K. Cavanagh
Elizabeth M. Welch
FILED July 28, 2022
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 157738
DEMARIOL DONTAYE BOYKIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 158695
TYLER MAURICE TATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
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 US 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
2
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) (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 US at 489.
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 US 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
1
Boykin and both brothers were charged and convicted with respect to their roles in this
altercation. Neither of Boykin’s brothers is a party to this appeal.
3
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) (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:
2
This sentencing scheme did not eradicate sentences of life without the possibility of parole
for this class of defendant. Rather, it enabled the prosecution to move the trial court to
seek a life-without-parole sentence for a particular defendant sentenced under MCL 769.25
or MCL 769.25a. MCL 769.25(3); MCL 769.25a(4). If, as here, the prosecution did not
seek a life-without-parole sentence, a defendant must be sentenced to a term of years with
a minimum sentencing range of 25 to 40 years and a maximum sentence of 60 years. MCL
769.25(9); MCL 769.25a(4)(c). The chief difference between MCL 769.25 and MCL
769.25a is that MCL 769.25 eliminated mandatory sentences of life without the possibility
of parole for juveniles who were sentenced after Miller and MCL 769.25a enacted a
resentencing scheme for these juvenile offenders already sentenced in the event Miller was
given retroactive application. Therefore, since Montgomery held that Miller was to be
given retroactive application, MCL 769.25a is the applicable statute for defendant Boykin’s
resentencing.
4
(1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly held in People v Wines, 323 Mich
App 343 (2018), rev’d in nonrelevant part 506 Mich 954 (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 (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,
3
Each of these three individuals was also charged and prosecuted separately for his
involvement in the incidents leading to Tate’s convictions. They are not parties to this
appeal.
5
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).
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 (2021).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Sentencing decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Steanhouse,
500 Mich 453, 471; 902 NW2d 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 NW2d
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 NW2d 770 (2014).
6
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 NW2d 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.
Where the Legislature has assigned a range of sentencing outcomes for any given
conviction, the trial court has authority to sentence a defendant within that range. Within
that range, the sentence should be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case and
offender. People v McFarlin, 389 Mich 557, 574; 208 NW2d 504 (1973). It is the trial
court’s duty to exercise discretion in a way that ensures the individualized sentence
conforms with the principle of proportionality. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 651;
461 NW2d 1 (1990). An appropriate sentence should give consideration to the reformation
of the offender, the protection of society, the discipline of the offender, and the deterrence
of others from committing the same offense. People v Snow, 386 Mich 586, 592; 194
NW2d 314 (1972), citing Williams v New York, 337 US 241; 69 S Ct 1079; 93 L Ed 1337
(1949). However, these are not the only relevant sentencing criteria and trial courts are not
required to consider each of these factors when imposing a sentence. People v Broden,
428 Mich 343, 350; 408 NW2d 789 (1987).
Within each of the two statutes at issue here, MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a, there
is a range of sentencing outcomes. Unless the prosecution moves to sentence a defendant
to life in prison without the possibility of parole, juvenile defendants who are convicted of
7
certain enumerated acts may receive a minimum sentence of 25 to 40 years and a maximum
sentence of 60 years. 4 MCL 769.25(4), (9); MCL 769.25a(4)(c).
B. YOUTH IS A MITIGATING FACTOR THAT TRIAL COURTS MUST CONSIDER
WHEN SENTENCING JUVENILE OFFENDERS UNDER MCL 769.25 AND
MCL 769.25a
Sentencing juvenile defendants who were convicted of first-degree murder is an
exceptionally daunting task for trial courts. On one hand, first-degree murder is an
extremely serious offense, as it recognizes that at least one person is deceased. On the
other hand, defendants who are sentenced under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a were
juveniles when they committed their crimes. Even as we keep in mind the solemnity of
the acts that bring us to our consideration of the legal issues at hand, the Supreme Court
has clearly signaled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments
requires us to think differently about how we sentence juvenile offenders.
Since 2005, the Supreme Court’s message has been clear: one’s juvenile status
matters, and special consideration must be paid to youthful offenders before the harshest
sentences may be imposed. In the first of many cases dealing with juvenile offenders and
sentencing, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty is an unconstitutional
punishment for offenders who were under the age of 18 when their offenses were
4
In Boykin II, the majority asserted that the trial court “sentenced defendant to a term of
years, choosing not to impose a sentence of life without parole.” Boykin II, unpub op at 3.
This assertion is clearly erroneous. The trial court possesses no authority to sentence a
juvenile defendant to life without parole unless the prosecution first moves for that sentence
and the proper hearing is conducted. See MCL 769.25(4) and (9); MCL 769.25a(4)(c).
Because the prosecution never moved to sentence Boykin to a sentence of life without the
possibility of parole, the trial court could only impose a sentence within the applicable
range of terms of years.
8
committed. Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551; 125 S Ct 1183; 161 L Ed 2d 1 (2005). In
Roper, the Supreme Court relied on three general differences between juvenile and adult
offenders that “demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified
among the worst offenders.” Id. at 569. Those differences are: (1) juveniles have a “ ‘lack
of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility,’ ” which “often result[s] in
impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions”; (2) juveniles are “more vulnerable or
susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure,” and (3)
“the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult.” Id. at 569-570
(citation omitted). These reasons mean that juvenile offenders have “a greater claim than
adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment”
and make it “less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a
juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character.” Id. at 570. “Once the diminished
culpability of juveniles is recognized, it is evident that the penological justifications for the
death penalty apply to them with lesser force than to adults.” Id. at 571.
Five years later, applying this same logic, the Supreme Court held that sentences of
life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders who did not
commit homicide. Graham v Florida, 560 US 48, 76; 130 S Ct 2011; 176 L Ed 2d 825
(2010) (holding that “[a]n offender’s age is relevant to the Eighth Amendment, and
criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would
be flawed”). In the process, Graham added another reason why youth matters—that “the
features that distinguish juveniles from adults also put them at a significant disadvantage
in criminal proceedings.” Id. at 78.
9
In Miller, the Supreme Court applied the logic and rationale from Roper and
Graham that “children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of
sentencing” in the context of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for homicide
offenses. Miller, 567 US at 471. Although Graham’s holding only concerned non-
homicide offenses, the Supreme Court held that its underlying rationale was broader—the
characteristics of youth and the way they weaken rationales for punishments may render a
sentence of life without the possibility of parole disproportionate even for a homicide
offense. Id. at 473. The Supreme Court noted that the problem with mandatory life-
without-parole sentences is that they make youth and the factors of youth, as articulated by
Roper and Graham, irrelevant and “pose[] too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.”
Id. at 479. Therefore, when sentencing juvenile offenders to sentences of life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole, trial courts are required to “take into account how children
are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a
lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480. 5 Not having the ability to take these differences into account
“disregards the possibility of rehabilitation even when the circumstances most suggest it.”
Id. at 478.
Following Roper, Graham, and Miller, the Supreme Court has continued to
articulate that “children are constitutionally different from adults in their level of
culpability,” when holding that Miller created a substantive rule of constitutional law that
was to be given retroactive effect. Montgomery, 577 US at 213. Most recently, the
Supreme Court again made clear that youth is a mitigating factor in sentencing juveniles.
5
Because Miller incorporated the factors articulated in Roper and Graham, these factors
together are colloquially known as the Miller factors.
10
Jones v Mississippi, 593 US ___; 141 S Ct 1307, 1319; 209 L Ed 2d 390 (2021) (explaining
that, “[f]aced with a convicted murderer who was under 18 at the time of the offense and
with defense arguments focused on the defendant’s youth, it would be all but impossible
for a sentencer to avoid considering that mitigating factor”) (emphasis added).
In these cases, the Supreme Court has identified and analyzed the unique attributes
of youth and emphasized the importance of considering these attributes during sentencing. 6
Thus far, however, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional requirement to
consider these attributes only in the context of sentencing juveniles to life without the
possibility of parole. Now we must decide whether consideration of these attributes is
required when imposing a term-of-years sentence on a juvenile defendant. Keeping in
mind the Supreme Court’s consistent statement across Eighth Amendment cases that
“youth matters in sentencing,” Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1314, we hold that
consideration of youth and its attendant circumstances is also required by this state’s
sentencing jurisprudence.
6
There is little practical difference between this majority opinion and the outcome
preferred by the dissent. In order to come to a disagreement, the dissent narrowly reads
Roper, Miller, Montgomery, and Jones at the same time that it broadly reads this opinion.
The Supreme Court has been clear that youth matters in sentencing decisions. Most
recently, the Supreme Court stated verbatim that, “if the sentencer has discretion to
consider the defendant’s youth, the sentencer necessarily will consider the defendant’s
youth.” Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319. This opinion simply echoes that
sentiment. Whereas the dissent is correct that Miller and Montgomery were decided in the
context of mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole, Jones was decided
squarely within the discretionary sentencing regime that was mandated by Miller and
Montgomery. Thus, we respectfully disagree that the Supreme Court’s holdings should be
limited to the context of mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole.
11
Our sentencing caselaw focuses on the principle of proportionality, which requires
sentences imposed “to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding
the offense and the offender.” Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 (emphasis added). Accordingly,
because the Supreme Court has held that youth—a circumstance of the offender—matters
at sentencing, our own caselaw requires that such a relevant offender characteristic must
be considered at sentencing. In Snow, this Court decided the legality of a sentence that was
made harsher because the defendant decided to face trial rather than plead guilty. In
holding that the defendant was entitled to resentencing because the record was silent about
why the defendant’s sentence departed from the ordinary minimum sentence, this Court
expressed the importance of four basic sentencing considerations. Snow, 386 Mich at 592,
594. Those four considerations are: (1) “reformation of the offender”; (2) “protection of
society”; (3) “disciplining of the wrongdoer”; and (4) “deterrence of others from
committing like offenses.” Id. at 592.
Youth affects these considerations. For example, since “a greater possibility exists
that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed,” the mitigating qualities of youth
necessarily transform the analysis of the first Snow criterion. Roper, 543 US at 570.
Without considering the mitigating factors of youth, then, a sentence cannot adequately
address the reformation of the offender. Next, because youth have a “heightened capacity
for change” relative to adults, the needs for protecting society should be given
individualized consideration, which necessarily considers the way youth affects the
defendant’s ability to change. Miller, 567 US at 479; see also Jones, 593 US at ___ n 7;
141 S Ct at 1337 n 7 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (explaining that “[t]he Eighth Amendment
requires that sentencers (and reviewing courts) not presume that most juveniles will forever
12
remain the ‘murderers’ they once were”) (citation and comma omitted). In addition,
because it is “less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a
juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character,” Snow’s focus on discipline of the
wrongdoer must be viewed differently under the lens of youth. See Roper, 543 US at 570.
“Nor can deterrence do the work in this context, because ‘ “the same characteristics that
render juveniles less culpable than adults” ’ . . . make them less likely to consider potential
punishment.” Miller, 567 US at 472, quoting Graham, 560 US at 72, quoting Roper, 543
US at 71. Given that youth is a mitigating factor, it will inevitably factor into Snow’s four
considerations.
We thus hold, consistent with the Supreme Court’s repeated recognition of youth’s
effect on sentencing and our own sentencing jurisprudence, that in all sentencing hearings
conducted under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a, trial courts are to consider the defendant’s
youth and must treat it as a mitigating factor.
C. TRIAL COURTS NEED NOT ARTICULATE THEIR BASES FOR CONSIDERING
THE OFFENDERS’ YOUTH WHEN SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS TO
TERMS OF YEARS
The requirement to consider youth at sentencing is not necessarily the same as a
requirement to articulate the Miller factors on the record during a sentencing hearing.
There are a few possible sources of law that would require courts to articulate these factors
on the record, such as a statute, the United States Constitution, the Michigan Constitution,
or our caselaw. None of those sources of law expresses such a requirement. 7 Therefore,
7
Because we are not persuaded by the briefs that the Michigan Constitution considers this
specific issue in a meaningfully different way than these other sources of law, we decline
13
we hold that trial courts need not articulate their bases for considering an offender’s youth
during sentencing hearings conducted under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a in which the
offender is sentenced to a term of years.
MCL 769.25 is the relevant statute outlining sentencing procedure for juvenile
defendants convicted of these enumerated offenses, including first-degree murder. 8 In
enacting this statute, the Legislature differentiated between two plausible outcomes for
offenders who were convicted of certain enumerated acts committed before they turned 18.
A defendant could either receive a term of years with a minimum sentence of 25 to 40 years
and a maximum of 60 years or, if the prosecution timely moved to have the court consider
it, life without the possibility of parole. Compare MCL 769.25(3) to MCL 769.25(4). If
the prosecution seeks life without the possibility of parole, the trial court must conduct a
hearing in which it considers the Miller factors. MCL 769.25(6). At that hearing, the trial
court “shall specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered
by the court and the court’s reasons supporting the sentence imposed.” MCL 769.25(7).
But if the prosecution does not move for life without the possibility of parole or if the trial
court decides such a sentence is disproportionate, there is no analogous statutory provision
requiring that the trial court specify on the record any specific factors or other sentencing
criteria. MCL 769.25(9). This is a meaningful distinction. Thus, we find that there is no
to hold that there is an independent basis for an on-the-record articulation requirement
under the Michigan Constitution.
8
MCL 769.25a is also relevant for many members of this class of offender, including
Boykin, who were sentenced before Montgomery held that Miller was retroactive.
However, MCL 769.25a mirrors the pertinent requirements of MCL 769.25 and expressly
incorporates the hearing procedures of MCL 769.25 without meaningful difference. See,
e.g., MCL 769.25a(4)(b). Our holding thus pertains to both statutes.
14
statutory support for requiring trial courts to articulate the mitigating factors of defendant’s
youth on the record in MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a hearings unless life without the
possibility of parole is sought.
Nor does the United States Constitution impose such a requirement. Jones held that
an on-the-record sentencing explanation of the Miller factors is not necessary in cases
where a life-without-parole sentence is imposed. Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1320-
1321 (“Because the Constitution does not require an on-the-record explanation of
mitigating circumstances by the sentence in death penalty cases, it would be incongruous
to require an on-the-record explanation of the mitigating circumstance of youth by the
sentence in life-without-parole cases”). By extension, then, the Constitution also does not
require an on-the-record explanation of the mitigating circumstances of youth in term-of-
years cases.
We also find no requirement for an on-the-record articulation of how youth or the
Miller factors affected a sentence in our caselaw. Youth matters in sentencing decisions
involving juvenile offenders, and the trial court is responsible for tailoring a sentence to an
individual defendant and for giving reasons for imposing each sentence in order to facilitate
appellate review. McFarlin, 389 Mich 557; People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 549; 339 NW2d
440 (1983), overruled on other grounds by Milbourn, 435 Mich at 635. However, like
Jones’s observation about the Supreme Court’s precedent, none of this Court’s sentencing
jurisprudence requires trial courts to fulfill these responsibilities by articulating specific
factors on the record. Instead, our sentences must follow the principle of proportionality,
which “requires ‘sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness
of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” Steanhouse, 500 Mich
15
at 474, quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636. “[S]entencing courts must justify the sentence
imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.” People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392;
870 NW2d 502 (2015) (citation omitted). But never before have we imposed a requirement
that a sentencing court give a detailed on-the-record explanation of one or more specific
factors, and we do not impose such a requirement here.
The Court of Appeals previously considered the question before us and held that
there is no constitutional mandate to make specific, on-the-record findings about the Miller
factors, but that sentencing courts should be guided by the Snow factors, which necessarily
includes the consideration of youth as a mitigating factor. People v Wines, 323 Mich App
343, 352; 916 NW2d 855 (2018), rev’d in part on other grounds 506 Mich 954 (2020). We
affirm the Court of Appeals holding in Wines, which “requires only that when the trial
court exercises its discretion in sentencing a defendant that it consider the defendant’s age”
and is thus “consistent with the traditional penological goals expressed by this Court in
[Snow].” Wines, 506 Mich 954, 958 (CLEMENT, J., concurring).
However, merely considering the mitigating qualities of youth within Snow’s
sentencing criteria stops short of requiring trial courts to articulate a basis on the record to
explain how youth affected the sentence imposed. We again look to Jones as a helpful
guide to explain the holding in Wines. Jones explains:
[A]n on-the-record sentencing explanation is not necessary to ensure that a
sentencer considers a defendant’s youth. Jones’s argument to the contrary
rests on the assumption that meaningful daylight exists between (i) a
sentencer’s discretion to consider youth, and (ii) the sentencer’s actual
consideration of youth. But if the sentencer has discretion to consider the
defendant’s youth, the sentencer necessarily will consider the defendant’s
youth, especially if defense counsel advances an argument based on the
defendant’s youth. Faced with a convicted murderer who was under 18 at
16
the time of the offense and with defense arguments focused on the
defendant’s youth, it would be all but impossible for a sentencer to avoid
considering that mitigating factor. [Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319].
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Wines is aligned with the sentiment expressed in
Jones—which was another case in a long line of Supreme Court cases explaining that youth
matters—as well as with Michigan sentencing caselaw and our present holding. Trial
courts must consider youth as a mitigating factor in hearings conducted under MCL 769.25
or MCL 769.25a even when the defendant is sentenced to a term of years; however, this
consideration need not be articulated on the record. See Wines, 506 Mich at 958
(CLEMENT, J., concurring). 9 In other words, there is no authority that imposes a higher
standard of articulation regarding youth beyond our general requirement that a trial court
must adequately explain its sentence on the record in order to facilitate appellate review.
Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392.
IV. APPLICATION
A. DOCKET NO. 157738
In Boykin II, the Court of Appeals held that consideration of Boykin’s youth was
unnecessary because Miller only pertained to defendants who are sentenced to serve life
without the possibility of parole. Boykin II, unpub op at 3-4. Accordingly, the majority
never addressed whether the trial court properly considered youth to be a mitigating factor
9
That said, nothing in this opinion deprives trial courts of the discretion to articulate how
an offender’s youth or the Miller factors apply to that particular offender’s sentence.
Rather, articulating how the court considered the defendant’s youth when fashioning an
appropriate sentence enhances an appellate court’s ability to review the proportionality of
that sentence.
17
when defendant was sentenced. In light of our holding, we vacate that opinion and remand
to the Court of Appeals to consider that question.
B. DOCKET NO. 158695
In Tate, rather than rejecting Tate’s arguments, the Court of Appeals applied Wines.
Tate, unpub op at 6. The panel went on to identify ways in which it believed the trial court
gave consideration to defendant’s attributes of youth. For example, the trial court
commented that “ ‘perhaps your age, and your maturity, were working against you,’ but it
found that Tate ‘knew exactly what [he] was doing.’ ” Id. at 7. And the panel added that
the trial court “observed that Tate ‘volunteered to participate in the assassination of [the
victim] . . . .’ ” Id. Assuming that these statements comply with our requirement that youth
must be a mitigating factor, they appear to only represent a small portion of the record
established by the sentencing court. 10 It bears repeating that youth is a mitigating factor at
10
The trial court stated:
You participated in this murder, then you ran and hid.
You boasted, subsequence [sic] to the murder, that the Police couldn’t
find you, the Police couldn’t get you.
This Court, now having had the opportunity to, to see this
circumstance three times, cannot comprehend why you would volunteer to
participate in this execution.
Was it a thrill seeking? Was it an opportunity to be the man, and
enhance your reputation, in your community?
I have no idea.
But the fact is, that perhaps your age, and your maturity, were working
against you.
18
sentencing, not an aggravating factor. 11 Although trial courts are not required to make a
record that they considered each mitigating factor listed in Miller when sentencing these
defendants, whether these statements and the totality of the record established by the trial
court comply with our requirement that a trial court consider youth to be a mitigating factor
is a close question deserving of additional appellate review. Thus, we vacate Part V of the
Court of Appeals opinion, which discusses Tate’s sentence, and remand to the Court of
Appeals for reconsideration in light of this opinion.
V. CONCLUSION
Sentencing courts must consider youth as a mitigating factor at sentencing hearings
conducted under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a when the defendant is sentenced to a term
of years. However, the court’s consideration of youth need not be articulated on the record.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct when it held that there is no constitutional
mandate to make specific findings on the record as to the Miller factors but that sentencing
courts should be guided by the Snow factors, which necessarily include consideration of
youth as a mitigating factor. Wines, 323 Mich App at 352. Because it is unclear whether
the trial courts properly considered youth to be mitigating in either of these consolidated
But in our civilized society, you’re [sic] actions, despite your age, do
not make your actions forgivable.
Once again, you knew exactly what you were doing.
11
The Supreme Court left open the door to the possibility that a defendant could raise a
successful Eighth Amendment challenge if a trial court “expressly refuses as a matter of
law to consider relevant mitigating circumstances.” Jones, 593 US at ___ n 7; 141 S Ct at
1320 n 7. A defendant may also raise a successful sentencing challenge if the sentencing
court refuses to consider relevant mitigating factors or circumstances as mitigating.
19
cases, yet the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ sentencing decisions, we vacate
the portions of both Court of Appeals opinions discussing defendants’ sentencing
challenges, and we remand both cases to the Court of Appeals for further consideration not
inconsistent with this opinion.
Richard H. Bernstein
Bridget M. McCormack
Elizabeth T. Clement (except as to
Part IV(B))
Megan K. Cavanagh
Elizabeth M. Welch
20
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 157738
DEMARIOL DONTAYE BOYKIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 158695
TYLER MAURICE TATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
MCCORMACK, C.J. (concurring).
I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to say more about the
majority’s conclusion that the Michigan Constitution does not contain a requirement that a
trial court articulate on the record how it considered the mitigating characteristics of youth
when it sentences a juvenile defendant to a sentence other than life without the possibility
of parole. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that “children are different”
for sentencing purposes and that sometimes, a sentencing court may not constitutionally
sentence a juvenile without considering the mitigating characteristics of youth. Miller v
Alabama, 567 US 460, 480; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012); see also Graham v
Florida, 560 US 48, 76; 130 S Ct 2011; 176 L Ed 2d 825 (2010); Roper v Simmons, 543
US 551; 125 S Ct 1183; 161 L Ed 2d 1 (2005). Exactly how that principle applies in
interpreting the Michigan Constitution has not been explored in these cases and is therefore
left for another day.
The Michigan Constitution played a backseat role throughout these cases’
progression through the trial and appellate courts; it was not until defendant Tyler M. Tate’s
supplemental brief in this Court that it made its first appearance. And then, Tate argued
that his 40-year minimum sentence was disproportionate under Article 1, § 16 of the
Michigan Constitution and our decision in People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15; 485 NW2d 866
(1992). But Bullock’s four-factor test for evaluating the proportionality of a particular
sentence does not address Tate’s argument that Article 1, § 16 requires an on-the-record
explanation of how the mitigating characteristics of youth affected a trial court’s sentencing
decision for the sentence imposed to be constitutional. See, e.g., State v Null, 836 NW2d
41, 74 (Iowa, 2013) (“We think the direction from the Supreme Court that trial courts
consider everything said about youth in Roper, Graham, and Miller means more than a
generalized notion of taking age into consideration as a factor in sentencing. . . . [W]e
conclude article I, section 17 [of the Iowa Constitution] requires that a district court
recognize and apply the core teachings of Roper, Graham, and Miller in making sentencing
decisions for long prison terms involving juveniles.”). Tate’s argument is therefore a poor
fit with the authority he cites.
But we know youth matters in sentencing under the state Constitution as well as the
federal Constitution. See People v Stovall, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket
No. 162425). While neither the statutory scheme nor the federal Constitution categorically
2
requires an on-the-record articulation of how the characteristics of youth affect a
sentencing court’s decision, the Court correctly rules that sentencing courts must consider
those characteristics and treat them as mitigating. A trial court’s failure to do so explicitly
on the record, notwithstanding no categorical rule requiring it, stands a high chance of
rendering its sentence a violation of Article 1, § 16, and therefore necessarily an abuse of
its discretion. People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723; 835 NW2d 399 (2013) (“A trial court
necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”).
And whether a categorical rule may be constitutionally required under Article 1,
§ 16 is a question left for another day. The principles animating Miller, Graham, and Roper
apply no less forcefully in this context. Those principles, together with our precedent
requiring individualized sentencing, see People v McFarlin, 389 Mich 557, 574; 208
NW2d 504 (1973), may render a sentence where the effect of youth is unexplained at such
high risk of violating those principles as to be constitutionally impermissible. See
generally Null, 836 NW2d at 74.
Bridget M. McCormack
3
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 157738
DEMARIOL DONTAYE BOYKIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 158695
TYLER MAURICE TATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
CLEMENT, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Consistently with my concurring statement in People v Wines, 506 Mich 954, 958
(2020) (CLEMENT, J., concurring), I agree with the majority that trial courts are required to
consider the mitigating effects of youth when sentencing a juvenile to a term-of-years
sentence because youth affects the traditional penological goals that guide a sentencer’s
discretion. See People v Snow, 386 Mich 586, 592; 194 NW2d 314 (1972). Within this
context, the United States Supreme Court’s discussion of the mitigating effects of youth in
Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), is relevant in
understanding how youth relates to those traditional penological goals. Neither this
decision nor Wines holds that the Eighth Amendment requires specific consideration of
each attribute of youth identified in Miller, nor does either decision require that the trial
court make explicit findings as to each of those attributes on the record. Although this
Court has chosen elsewhere to extend Miller, see, e.g., People v Stovall, ___ Mich ___;
___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 162425); People v Parks, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d
___ (2022) (Docket No. 162086), the majority opinion in this case does not do so, and
accordingly, I concur with its holding that the mitigating effects of youth must be
considered during term-of-years juvenile sentencing.
While I agree with the majority’s iteration of this general rule, I respectfully dissent
as to the majority’s application of that rule to defendant Tate. At Tate’s sentencing, the
trial court listened to defense counsel’s youth-based leniency arguments and noted that it
had also reviewed Tate’s presentence investigation report, which contained additional
material about Tate’s age, family environment, and criminal history. The trial court
acknowledged that “perhaps [Tate’s] age, and [his] maturity, were working against [him],”
but also highlighted Tate’s volunteered and intentional role in the murder, his flight from
and lengthy evasion of law enforcement, his lack of remorse, and his “violent, deplorable”
nature. On the basis of this full consideration of Tate’s background and the nature of the
offense, the trial court sentenced him to a 40- to 60-year term of imprisonment. The trial
court’s record of its decision-making sufficiently justified the sentence imposed in order to
facilitate appellate review, the sole articulation requirement mandated by our sentencing
jurisprudence. People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015).
Despite this, the majority now chooses to remand this case to the Court of Appeals
for reconsideration, explaining that the trial court’s comments “appear to only represent a
2
small portion of the record established by the sentencing court” and that “whether these
statements and the totality of the record established by the trial court comply with our
requirement that a trial court consider youth to be a mitigating factor is a close question
deserving of additional appellate review.” In my opinion, this disposition on the basis of
the brevity of the trial judge’s statements deeply muddies—if not outright contradicts—the
majority’s holding that no statutory or constitutional authority compels the trial court to
make an on-the-record explanation of its consideration of youth. To the extent that the
majority may believe that Tate is deserving of a shorter minimum sentence because of the
mitigating effects of youth (i.e., that the trial court weighed the mitigating effects of youth
incorrectly), that is a proportionality issue that should be addressed by this Court and not
remanded to the Court of Appeals, which has already considered and rejected Tate’s
proportionality argument.
Elizabeth T. Clement
3
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 157738
DEMARIOL DONTAYE BOYKIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 158695
TYLER MAURICE TATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).
I dissent from the majority’s decision. The majority opinion concludes that
“[s]entencing courts must consider youth as a mitigating factor at sentencing hearings
conducted under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a when the defendant is sentenced to a term
of years,” but that “the court’s consideration of youth need not be articulated on the
record.” 1 To the extent the majority opinion holds that a juvenile homicide offender’s
youth operates as a mitigating factor for purposes of sentencing, I take no exception, as
1
Ante at 19.
“Miller [v Alabama] repeatedly described youth as a sentencing factor akin to a mitigating
circumstance.” 2 But the majority opinion’s holding is not so narrow. Instead, the majority
opinion concludes more broadly that when sentencing a juvenile homicide offender to a
term of years under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a, sentencing courts are required to
consider the mitigating qualities of youth within the penological objectives outlined in
People v Snow 3 and that a failure to adequately consider those mitigating qualities will
result in reversal. I do not agree with this broader holding, as it lacks precedential support
and runs counter to the guidance provided by the Supreme Court of the United States that
“an on-the-record sentencing explanation is not necessary to ensure that a sentencer
considers a defendant’s youth” because a sentencer that has the discretion to consider a
defendant’s youth “necessarily will consider the defendant’s youth . . . .” 4 I would not
upset our Legislature’s policy choice of declining to extend Miller—which until now has
only applied to this state’s juvenile homicide offenders facing life without parole—to term-
of-years sentences imposed under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. Instead, I would hold
that traditional sentencing considerations apply to these sentencing hearings; that is, when
deciding what constitutes an appropriate term-of-years sentence for a juvenile homicide
offender, a sentencing court should ultimately be guided by the principle of proportionality,
2
Jones v Mississippi, 593 US ___, ___; 141 S Ct 1307, 1315; 209 L Ed 2d 390 (2021),
citing Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012).
3
People v Snow, 386 Mich 586, 592; 194 NW2d 314 (1972) (providing the following
penological objectives of sentencing: (1) “reformation of the offender,” (2) “protection of
society,” (3) punishment of the offender, and (4) “deterrence of others from committing
like offenses”).
4
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319.
2
which aims to tailor the sentence to the particular offense and offender before it and which
may require the court to consider how the offender’s age correlates with the sentence
imposed. Applying that standard, I would affirm each defendant’s sentence, as both
sentencing courts adequately explained the sentences imposed in relation to each defendant
and their offenses and, therefore, did not abuse their discretion in sentencing defendants to
40 to 60 years’ imprisonment.
I. APPLICABLE LAW
A. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
In 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Miller that “mandatory life
without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” 5 The Supreme Court
explained that “children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of
sentencing,” citing the following three grounds:
First, children have a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of
responsibility, leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking.
Second, children are more vulnerable to negative influences and outside
pressures, including from their family and peers; they have limited control
over their own environment and lack the ability to extricate themselves from
horrific, crime-producing settings. And third, a child’s character is not as
well formed as an adult’s; his traits are less fixed and his actions less likely
to be evidence of irretrievable depravity.[6]
Given these asserted differences, the Miller Court concluded that subjecting
juveniles to the same mandatory life-without-parole sentence applicable to adults
5
Miller, 567 US at 465.
6
Id. at 471 (citations, quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted).
3
contravened the “foundational principle” from the Court’s prior decisions in Roper v
Simmons 7 and Graham v Florida 8: “that imposition of a State’s most severe penalties on
juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children.” 9 Unlike Graham and
Roper, however, the Court in Miller did “not categorically bar a penalty for a class of
offenders or type of crime[.]” 10 Instead, Miller “allowed life-without-parole sentences for
defendants who committed homicide when they were under 18, but only so long as the
sentence is not mandatory—that is, only so long as the sentencer has discretion to ‘consider
the mitigating qualities of youth’ and impose a lesser punishment.” 11 Accordingly, before
imposing life without parole on a juvenile homicide offender, a sentencing court must have
the opportunity to consider: “[a defendant’s] chronological age and its hallmark features—
among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences”;
“the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually
extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional”; “the circumstances of the
homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way
familial and peer pressures may have affected him”; whether “he might have been charged
7
Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551, 578; 125 S Ct 1183; 161 L Ed 2d 1 (2005) (holding that
the Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of the death penalty on offenders under the age
of 18).
8
Graham v Florida, 560 US 48, 74; 130 S Ct 2011; 176 L Ed 2d 825 (2010) (holding “that
for a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide the Eighth Amendment forbids the
sentence of life without parole”).
9
Miller, 567 US at 474.
10
Id. at 483.
11
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1314 (emphasis omitted), quoting Miller, 567 US at
476.
4
[with] and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth—
for example, his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors (including on a plea
agreement) or his incapacity to assist his own attorneys”; and “the possibility of
rehabilitation . . . .” 12 These are commonly referred to as the Miller factors.
Four years later, in Montgomery v Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that Miller
applies retroactively to juvenile homicide offenders whose convictions and sentences were
final when Miller was decided. 13 Yet Montgomery did nothing to change the limited scope
of Miller’s holding. As the Supreme Court recently stated in Jones v Mississippi, “Miller
cited Roper and Graham for a simple proposition: Youth matters in sentencing. And
because youth matters, Miller held that a sentencer must have discretion to consider youth
before imposing a life-without-parole sentence . . . .” 14 The Court in Jones further
explained that “an on-the-record sentencing explanation . . . is not necessary to ensure that
a sentencer considers a defendant’s youth . . . .” 15 At bottom, “Miller required a
discretionary sentencing procedure” only for those juvenile homicide offenders subject to
life without parole, and “the Court did not suggest that those discretionary sentencing
regimes required some kind of sentencing explanation.” 16
12
Miller, 567 US at 477-478.
13
Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US 190; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016).
14
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1316.
15
Id. at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319.
16
Id. at ___, ___; 141 S Ct at 1317, 1320.
5
B. MICHIGAN LAW
In response to Miller, our Legislature enacted MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. 17
Under these statutes, if the prosecuting attorney files a motion seeking imposition of a life-
without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender convicted of certain enumerated
offenses, including first-degree murder, the sentencing court must conduct a hearing on
that motion as part of the sentencing process. 18 At that hearing, the sentencing court is
statutorily required to “consider the factors listed in [Miller]” and to “specify on the record
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court’s
reasons supporting the sentence imposed.” 19 If the prosecutor does not seek life without
parole, however, the sentencing court is not required to conduct such a hearing. Instead,
the statutes require the court to sentence the offender to a term of years in which the
minimum sentence is no less than 25 years and no more than 40 years and the maximum
sentence is no less than 60 years. 20 That is, absent a motion from the prosecutor seeking
life without parole, there is no statutory obligation for the sentencing court to consider the
17
MCL 769.25a was enacted in anticipation that the United States Supreme Court would
hold that Miller applies retroactively. It provides essentially the same substantive relief as
MCL 769.25.
18
MCL 769.25(2), (3), (6); MCL 769.25a(4)(b).
19
MCL 769.25(6); MCL 769.25(7). The trial court is permitted to “consider any other
criteria relevant to its decision, including the individual’s record while incarcerated,” MCL
769.25(6), as well as “evidence presented at trial,” MCL 769.25(7).
20
MCL 769.25(4), (9); MCL 769.25a(4)(c). A juvenile homicide offender benefiting from
Montgomery’s holding that Miller applies retroactively and who is not subject to a life-
without-parole sentence, like Boykin, would actually receive a maximum sentence of
exactly 60 years, MCL 769.25a(4)(c), whereas a juvenile whose convictions and sentences
were final after Miller, like Tate, would receive a maximum sentence of “not less than 60
years,” MCL 769.25(9). Both Tate and Boykin received 40- to 60-year sentences.
6
Miller factors, nor is the court required to state on the record the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances the court considered in sentencing the juvenile homicide offender to a term
of years.
The lack of statutory guidance for sentencing courts imposing term-of-years
sentences under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a does not mean that those courts may
simply rubber-stamp the maximum allowable sentence under those statutes. Rather, this
Court in People v Milbourn stated that “with regard to the judicial selection of an individual
sentence within the statutory minimum and maximum for a given offense,” judicial
sentencing discretion is to be exercised according to the “principle of proportionality,”
which “requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness
of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” 21 In order “to assure that
the sentences imposed across the discretionary range are proportionate to the seriousness
of the matters that come before the court for sentencing . . . , the judge, of course, must
take into account the nature of the offense and the background of the offender.” 22 Further,
in order to facilitate appellate review of a sentence, a sentencing court must justify the
sentence imposed by articulating the criteria on which it relied to fashion a sentence that is
proportionate to the offense and the offender. 23 Whether the sentence imposed violates the
21
People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 635-636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). See also People v
Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 459-460, 474-475; 902 NW2d 327 (2017).
22
Milbourn, 435 Mich at 651.
23
People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015) (“[S]entencing courts
must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.”), citing People v
Coles, 417 Mich 523, 550; 339 NW2d 440 (1983) (requiring “that the trial court state on
the record which criteria were considered and what reasons support the court’s decision
7
principle of proportionality is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the
outcome falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. 24
II. ANALYSIS
The majority opinion holds that sentencing courts are required to consider the
mitigating qualities, circumstances, and factors of youth within the penological objectives
outlined in Snow (reformation, protection, punishment, and deterrence) when sentencing a
juvenile homicide offender to a term-of-years sentence under MCL 769.25 and MCL
769.25a. It stresses, however, that an on-the-record explanation of those mitigating
qualities is not necessary and claims that its holding falls short of requiring courts to
articulate how the Miller factors—which the Supreme Court has also characterized as
“mitigating qualities,” “mitigating circumstances,” “mitigating factors,” and “distinctive
attributes” of youth 25—affected the term-of-years sentence. This holding, convoluted as it
is, lacks legal support of any kind: it is not required by the United States or Michigan
Constitution; it is not required by statute; and it is not required by precedent.
The majority opinion derives its holding from Miller, but the Supreme Court’s
holding in Miller was limited: it corrected the constitutional infirmity of sentencing
schemes mandating life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders by requiring that
sentencers be given the opportunity to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and the
regarding the length and nature of punishment imposed”), overruled in part on other
grounds by Milbourn, 435 Mich 630.
People v Skinner, 502 Mich 89, 131-132; 917 NW2d 292 (2018); People v Babcock, 469
24
Mich 247, 269; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).
25
Miller, 567 US at 472, 476, 489 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
8
discretion to impose a lesser sentence. 26 Nowhere in Miller—or Roper, Graham, or
Jones—did the Court state that sentencers must consider the distinctive attributes of a
juvenile homicide offender’s youth when imposing a sentence less than life without parole.
Although the Court in Jones suggested that the broader rationale of Roper, Graham, and
Miller is that “youth matters in sentencing,” 27 their holdings are limited to the specific
sentences before the Court. In any event, the proposition that youth matters in sentencing
is hardly a novel statement of blackletter law that can be first attributed to the Roper-
Graham-Miller trilogy. Miller itself stated that the differences between juvenile and adult
offenders are commonsensical and confirm what “ ‘any parent knows,’ ” 28 and society has
long recognized that an offender’s age may warrant a less severe punishment. 29 I would
26
Id. at 479 (holding that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that
mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders,” and that “[b]y
making youth (and all that accompanies it) irrelevant to imposition of that harshest prison
sentence, such a scheme poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment”). See also
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1316 (“[T]he Miller Court stated that a judge or jury
must have the opportunity to consider the defendant’s youth and must have discretion to
impose a different punishment than life without parole.”) (quotation marks and citation
omitted); Skinner, 502 Mich at 120 (“Miller simply held that mandatory life-without-parole
sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment and that before such a sentence can
be imposed on a juvenile, the sentencer must consider the mitigating qualities of youth.”).
27
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1316.
28
Miller, 567 US at 471, quoting Roper, 543 US at 569.
29
See People v Fields, 448 Mich 58, 77; 528 NW2d 176 (1995) (stating that a defendant’s
age is a relevant factor to determining whether a departure from the guidelines minimum
sentence range is warranted and that “courts often cite the young age of a defendant as a
reason to deviate from a minimum sentence”). See also Goodwin v Iowa District Court for
Davis Co, 936 NW2d 634, 652 (Iowa, 2019) (McDonald, J., concurring) (explaining that
the neuroscience evidence supporting the claim that juvenile offenders are less culpable
than adult offenders “does not tell us something new for which the law did not already
account”); see also id., quoting Sanders, ed, Juvenile Offenders for a Thousand Years:
Selected Readings from Anglo-Saxon Times to 1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North
9
not use the “simple proposition” 30 that youth matters in sentencing as a basis to extend
Roper, Graham, and Miller beyond their own terms as the majority opinion does here.
The majority’s holding also has no basis in this state’s jurisprudence. MCL 769.25
and MCL 769.25a do not require sentencing courts to consider mitigating qualities of youth
when sentencing a juvenile homicide offender to a term of years. In fact, the Legislature
requires courts to consider Miller’s mitigating factors only when the sentence sought is life
without parole. The Legislature’s omission of this requirement when the sentence sought
is a term of years is presumed to be intentional, 31 and it represents a policy choice made by
the Legislature that the judiciary may not second-guess or override. 32 Further, by enacting
MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a, the Legislature put in place a scheme that necessarily
accounts for a juvenile homicide offender’s youth, even when the sentence imposed is a
term of years. That is, the prosecution’s decision not to file a motion seeking life without
parole means that the defendant is benefiting from Miller by receiving a term-of-years
Carolina Press, 1970), p xviii (“ ‘[A]s far back as written records go children who have
broken the law have been treated on the whole more leniently than have adult
offenders.’ ”).
30
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1316.
31
People v Lewis, 503 Mich 162, 167; 926 NW2d 796 (2018).
32
See People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 152; 599 NW2d 102 (1999) (“[O]ur judicial role
precludes imposing different policy choices than those selected by the Legislature . . . .”);
People v Morris, 450 Mich 316, 336; 537 NW2d 842 (1995) (“[J]udicial misgivings
regarding the wisdom of the policy do not provide a legal foundation for overriding
legislative intent. . . . The wisdom of the policy is a political question to be resolved in the
political forum. To reach a contrary result would be simply to repudiate the legislative
choice.”).
10
sentence and not being subject to the law’s harshest term of imprisonment. 33 Thus, not
only are MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a “constitutionally necessary and constitutionally
sufficient,” 34 the manner by which these statutes operate ensures that a juvenile homicide
offender’s youth is being taken into account at sentencing.
Moreover, while courts fashioning a proportionate sentence must take into account
an offender’s background, which would include the offender’s age, there is “no basis in
Milbourn for a requirement that the trial judge tailor every defendant’s sentence in
relationship to the defendant’s age.” 35 “A judge may . . . consider a defendant’s age at
sentencing in deciding whether the sentence about to be imposed is proper, just as the judge
considers the recommended range under the guidelines and any other factors not expressly
prohibited by law.” 36 Simply put, “Miller mandated ‘only that a sentencer follow a certain
process—considering an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics—before imposing’
a life-without-parole sentence.” 37 Accordingly, Miller does not alter this state’s sentencing
jurisprudence for juvenile homicide offenders facing a lesser sentence.
33
See, e.g., James v United States, 59 A3d 1233, 1238 (DC, 2013) (explaining that the
sentencing statute necessarily takes into account juvenile homicide offenders’ youth and
its attendant characteristics “by limiting the minimum sentence to thirty years for offenders
under the age of eighteen at the time of their offense, as compared to life imprisonment
without opportunity for release which is available against adults”).
34
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1313.
35
People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 258; 562 NW2d 447 (1997).
36
Id. at 259 (emphasis added).
37
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1314, quoting Miller, 567 US at 483.
11
Given that sentencing courts are not required to articulate an on-the-record
explanation of how youth or the Miller factors affect a term-of-years sentence imposed
under MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a, there is no legal basis for affirming the Court of
Appeals decision in People v Wines. 38 Despite recognizing that “there is no constitutional
mandate requiring the trial court to specifically make findings as to the Miller factors
except in the context of a decision whether to impose a sentence of life without parole,”
the Court of Appeals in Wines nonetheless concluded that “when the sentence of life
imprisonment without parole is not at issue, the [sentencing] court should be guided by a
balancing of the Snow objectives and in that context is required to take into account the
attributes of youth, such as those described in Miller.” 39 According to Wines, “[t]he
process of properly balancing [the Snow] objectives in the case of a minor defendant
necessitates consideration of the distinctive attributes of youth,” and “a failure to consider
the distinctive attributes of youth, such as those discussed in Miller,” when imposing a
term-of-years sentence under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a amounts to an abuse of
discretion warranting reversal. 40
There are a number of issues with the Court of Appeals’ holding in Wines that the
majority opinion fails to address. For example, Wines was incorrect to suggest that Miller’s
holding requires courts to make specific findings regarding the Miller factors when
deciding whether to impose life without parole—a requirement the Supreme Court of
38
People v Wines, 323 Mich App 343; 916 NW2d 855 (2018), rev’d in part on other
grounds 506 Mich 954 (2020).
39
Id. at 352.
40
Id. at 351-352.
12
United States and this Court have rejected. 41 Further, Miller’s only holding was that
mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. Thus, there is
no basis to apply it outside that constitutional context. 42 Wines also failed to recognize that
Snow’s penological objectives “are not the only relevant criteria” for determining an
appropriate sentence and that they do not instruct trial courts “on every factor they must
consider when imposing [a] sentence.” 43 And nowhere in Wines did the panel discuss the
principle of proportionality. Finally, the Court of Appeals’ holding in Wines is unclear as
to what exactly courts are required to consider when life without parole is not at issue.
Particularly, it failed to explain whether “ ‘taking into account the attributes of youth’ [is]
distinguishable in some way from considering the Miller factors and, if so, what is that
distinction?” 44 The majority opinion adds to the confusion left by Wines’s holding by
requiring sentencing courts to consider “the mitigating qualities of youth within Snow’s
sentencing criteria” 45—which do not represent an exhaustive list of criteria to be
considered in fashioning an appropriate sentence—but failing to explain how a court’s
41
See Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct 1307 (rejecting the argument that Miller imposed a
formal fact-finding requirement); Skinner, 502 Mich 89 (same).
42
Indeed, nothing in the majority’s opinion suggests a 40- to 60-year sentence for a juvenile
homicide offender is unconstitutional.
43
People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 350; 408 NW2d 789 (1987), citing Coles, 417 Mich
550.
44
People v Wines, 506 Mich 954, 957 (2020) (MARKMAN, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part) (brackets omitted).
45
Ante at 16.
13
consideration of mitigating qualities within Snow’s framework differs from consideration
of the mitigating factors articulated in Miller. 46
The majority opinion contends that Jones provides helpful guidance to explain the
holding of Wines. I agree we should heed the words of Jones, particularly its discussion
of what Miller requires (a discretionary sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide
offenders subject to life without parole) and does not require (an on-the-record
consideration of the offender’s youth and its attendant characteristics). Yet the majority
opinion fails to do just that by affirming Wines and requiring sentencing courts to consider
a juvenile homicide offender’s youth as a mitigating factor when imposing a term-of-years
sentence under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. As the Court stated in Jones, “[I]f the
sentencer has discretion to consider the defendant’s youth, the sentencer necessarily will
consider the defendant’s youth,” as “it would be all but impossible for a sentencer to avoid
considering that mitigating factor” when tasked with sentencing a juvenile homicide
offender. 47 In other words, there is no need to require sentencing courts to consider a
juvenile homicide offender’s youth in whatever manner the majority opinion now
demands; youth is necessarily taken into account by giving courts the discretion to do so.
46
Even the majority opinion’s modified-Snow framework leaves many questions
unanswered. Are sentencing courts required to consider each of the modified Snow factors
when sentencing a juvenile homicide offender to a term of years under MCL 769.25 and
MCL 769.25a? Is a discussion of those factors alone sufficient for sentencing courts to
provide an adequate consideration of youth? What if, instead, the sentencing court
addresses some or all of the Miller factors and fails to address some or all of the Snow
factors? Under what circumstance is a sentencing court’s consideration of a juvenile
homicide offender’s youth enough to satisfy appellate review of the term-of-years
sentence?
47
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319.
14
Also, nothing prevents defense counsel from arguing that mitigating factors of youth favor
a lenient sentence. The majority opinion simply pays lip service to Jones and, instead,
reads as though youth is the only factor sentencing courts are to consider when sentencing
juvenile homicide offenders. This Court has rejected that notion, explaining—in the
context of whether to impose a life-without-parole sentence—that while “an offender’s age
is likely to be given significant weight in the court’s deliberations and may well constitute
the single best factor for ascertaining whether a Miller-benefited offender would actually
gain relief,” it is not “the exclusive factor that the trial court should consider in imposing a
sentence on a juvenile homicide offender.” 48 Accordingly, not only does a juvenile
homicide offender necessarily benefit from Miller by receiving a term-of-years sentence
instead of life without parole, but contrary to the majority opinion’s suggestion, the
“mitigating qualities” and “distinctive attributes” of youth discussed in Miller do not
represent an exclusive or exhaustive list of the criteria sentencers are to consider for all
juvenile homicide offenders.
In sum, there exists no constitutional, statutory, or judicial directive requiring
sentencing courts to consider the mitigating qualities of youth when imposing term-of-
years sentences under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. Absent such a directive, I would
not extend Miller’s limited constitutional holding in whatever manner the majority opinion
now extends it by affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision in Wines. Instead, I would hold
that traditional sentencing considerations apply to these sentencing hearings. That is, when
deciding what constitutes an appropriate term-of-years sentence for a juvenile homicide
48
People v Carp, 496 Mich 440, 520; 852 NW2d 801 (2014), cert gtd and opinion vacated
on other grounds sub nom Carp v Michigan, 577 US 1186 (2016).
15
offender, a sentencing court should ultimately be guided by the principle of proportionality,
which aims to tailor the sentence to the particular offense and offender before it and which
may require the court to consider how the offender’s age correlates with the sentence
imposed. By extending Miller to a whole new class of sentences, the majority opinion
undermines the policy choices made by the Michigan Legislature in enacting MCL 769.25
and MCL 769.25a, which do not require sentencing courts to consider the Miller factors,
the “distinctive attributes of youth,” or “the mitigating qualities of youth” when imposing
a term-of-years sentence.
III. APPLICATION
Tellingly, the majority opinion does not even attempt to apply its holding to the facts
of these two cases—at least not with any meaningful guidance. In Boykin, the majority
opinion concludes that the Court of Appeals failed to address whether the sentencing court
properly considered youth as a mitigating factor and that the panel instead held that
consideration of Boykin’s youth was unnecessary because Miller only applies to
defendants sentenced to life without parole. Contrary to the majority opinion’s assertion,
the Court of Appeals did not hold that consideration of Boykin’s youth was unnecessary;
it rejected Boykin’s sweeping argument that Miller requires juveniles to be considered
differently for purposes of sentencing and that the sentencing court was required to
consider the Miller factors. Given that Miller only applies to juvenile homicide offenders
facing life without parole, and because MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a already treat
juvenile homicide offenders differently than adult offenders, the panel correctly rejected
16
Boykin’s argument. Further, the panel did actually address the sentencing court’s
consideration of Boykin’s youth as a mitigating factor in the context of Miller, stating:
Though not mandated by Miller, the trial court actually did consider
the Miller factors when resentencing defendant. The trial court stated that it
was considering all the Miller factors and specifically mentioned its
consideration of defendant’s psychological evaluations, defendant’s
childhood, and his misconducts while in prison involving intoxicating
substances and weapons. Evaluating these factors, the trial court determined
that defendant’s youth and immaturity were not an excuse for his conduct,
and that “there was nothing to suggest here anything other than this was a
cold, calculated, premeditated killing of an innocent human being who
represented no threat to defendant.”[49]
The sentencing court also incorporated the penological objectives into its
sentencing, stating in its conclusion that “[b]ased on everything presented . . . ,
confinement is necessary for punishment, for the protection of this community, and the
hope of Mr. Boykin’s rehabilitation in a more controlled environment.” In light of the
sentencing court’s express incorporation of the Miller factors, its extensive discussion of
how those factors affected the sentence imposed, and its consideration of Snow’s
penological objectives, it is difficult to see what more the sentencing court could have done
to warrant an affirmance of Boykin’s sentence.
Boykin argues that the sentencing court did not consider his youth as a mitigating
factor. Boykin’s argument is largely based on the court’s comments that he was a mere 80
days shy of turning 18 when he committed the murder and that he “certainly was of a
mature age and cannot blame youth or immaturity as an excuse for this conduct.” Boykin’s
argument lacks merit for several reasons. First, when imposing its sentence, the court
49
People v Boykin, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March
20, 2018 (Docket No. 335862), p 4 n 2 (brackets omitted).
17
expressly incorporated and considered the Miller factors, which are mitigating by nature. 50
Second, Roper recognized that some juveniles “have already attained a level of maturity
some adults will never reach,” 51 and Miller contemplated sentencers considering a juvenile
homicide offender’s age as compared to other juveniles. 52 Accordingly, the sentencing
court’s reference to Boykin’s age in proximity to turning 18 and its statement that he
“certainly was of a mature age” is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognition that not
all juveniles are necessarily immature. Third, the court’s statement that Boykin “cannot
blame youth or immaturity as an excuse for this conduct” is not the equivalent of refusing,
as a matter of law, to consider his youth as a mitigating factor; rather, the court was simply
weighing Boykin’s youth and one of its hallmark characteristics against defendant’s
intentional homicidal acts. 53 Although youth is undisputedly a mitigating factor, it does
not serve as a justification for committing society’s most heinous crime. And, as detailed
by the sentencing court, Boykin’s offense was indeed heinous. Boykin was the shooter
50
See Skinner, 502 Mich at 115 (“It is undisputed that all of [the Miller] factors are
mitigating factors.”).
51
Roper, 543 US at 574.
52
Miller, 567 US at 477, 480 n 8 (explaining that sentencing schemes mandating life
without parole demanded that “every juvenile . . . receive the same sentence as every
other—the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child from
a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one”—and therefore requiring
that sentencers “take into account the differences among defendants and crimes” to remedy
the constitutional problem with those schemes).
53
See Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1320 n 7 (contrasting a potentially viable Eighth
Amendment claim when the sentencer “refuses as a matter of law to consider the
defendant’s youth” with a sentencer “deeming the defendant’s youth to be outweighed by
other factors or deeming the defendant’s youth to be an insufficient reason to support a
lesser sentence under the facts of the case,” which is permissible).
18
and the aggressor; he brought a gun to a fistfight that he was not involved in; he shot the
victim in the back three or four times as the victim tried to run away; and he admitted trying
to fire the gun as it was pressed against the victim’s cheek. When the gun jammed, Boykin
instead kicked the victim repeatedly as he lay dying on the sidewalk before fleeing the
scene. In short, the sentencing court considered Boykin’s background and his youth as
mitigating factors but concluded that the aggravating nature of the homicide supported a
sentence of 40 to 60 years’ imprisonment. This was not an abuse of discretion.
In Tate, the majority opinion recognizes that the sentencing court expressly
considered Tate’s youth but states that the court’s comments represent only a small portion
of the record and suggests that more is required to comply with the majority opinion’s
requirement that sentencing courts consider youth as a mitigating factor. This result is
puzzling for a number of reasons. First, it contradicts the majority opinion’s own holding
that sentencing courts need not even articulate their bases for considering an offender’s
youth when imposing a term-of-years sentence under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a.
Second, it turns a juvenile homicide offender’s age into the preeminent consideration for
courts imposing a term-of-years sentence under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a, thereby
downplaying the severity of the offender’s crimes and the impact on the victims and their
families. Third, it flies in the face of this state’s own practice of affirming sentences when
the sentencer has adequately explained the reasons for imposing its sentence. 54 Here, the
54
See Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392, citing Coles, 417 Mich at 550. See also Jones, 593 US
at ___; 141 S Ct at 1321 (“[W]hen a state judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment,
particularly a lengthy sentence, the judge often will explain both the sentence and the
judge’s evaluation of any mitigating circumstances. . . . Even when state law requires a
sentencer to supply reasons, many States do not impose a formulaic checklist of topics or
a magic-words requirement with respect to particular mitigating circumstances. And
19
record establishes that the sentencing court adequately explained the reasons for imposing
its sentence and considered how Tate’s youth affected that sentence. Tate’s counsel
advocated for a 25-year minimum sentence, focusing on Tate’s young age and arguing that
such a sentence would serve the traditional penological objectives. “Faced with a
convicted murderer who was under 18 at the time of the offense and with defense
arguments focused on the defendant’s youth, it [was] all but impossible for [the sentencing
court] to avoid considering that mitigating factor.” 55 Moreover, as recounted by the Court
of Appeals, the sentencing court explicitly considered Tate’s youth and its attendant
characteristics as a mitigating circumstance in fashioning its sentence:
[T]he trial court considered Tate’s youth and maturity level, commenting that
“perhaps your age, and your maturity, were working against you,” but it
found that Tate “knew exactly what he was doing.” Tate argues that the trial
court failed to consider his lesser degree of culpability in comparison to
[codefendant Brendon] Stanton-Lipscomb. Tate emphasizes that his role
was “vastly different” than Stanton-Lipscomb, who was determined to shoot
[Tyrell] Lane regardless of Tate’s involvement. Contrary to what Tate
argues, the trial court did discuss Tate’s role in the offense in comparison to
Stanton-Lipscomb’s role. The court acknowledged that Tate “did not start
the process of this execution,” but it found that he was a willing participant
in the plan to kill a young man, and that Tate played a “very active role in
the cold and calculated assassination of a very young man, Mr. Lane.” The
court also observed that Tate “volunteered to participate in the assassination
of Mr. Lane” after Taylor had refused to do so.
Further, Tate’s efforts to distinguish his culpability from Stanton-
Lipscomb’s culpability are unavailing considering that they did not receive
similar sentences. Stanton-Lipscomb received a mandatory sentence of life
without parole. Although the prosecution could have requested a life-
without-parole sentence for Tate, it did not. The differences in the culpability
appellate courts do not necessarily reverse merely because the sentencer could have said
more about mitigating circumstances.”).
55
Id. at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319.
20
are, therefore, reflected in the decision not to pursue a sentence that would
have subjected Tate to imprisonment for life without parole.[56]
Tate also asserts that he was “cooperative, articulate, and well-spoken
during the presentence interview,” and “expressed remorse for the victim’s
family.” However, the trial court commented that it was struck by Tate’s
statement in the presentence report that “I have nothing to do with it.” The
court also found that Tate’s post-offense messages on Facebook showed that
he had no remorse and showed that he was “a violent, deplorable young man
who will continue to be violent, if allowed to do so.” Evidence at trial
indicated that, after the offense, Tate eluded and lied to the police, and
boasted about how he would not be captured for his role in the shooting.[57]
Like Boykin, Tate argues that the sentencing court’s comments demonstrate that it
failed to consider his youth as a mitigating factor. Although the sentencing court did not
expressly incorporate the Miller factors into its sentencing decision like the sentencing
court in Boykin, the court’s comments demonstrate that it explicitly considered Tate’s
youth and its attendant characteristics as mitigating evidence but that it nonetheless found
that the aggravating circumstances of the crime, the active role Tate played in committing
that crime, and Tate’s postoffense conduct warranted a 40- to 60-year sentence. As in
Boykin, this was not an abuse of discretion.
56
Although the sentencing court briefly stated that Tate was “no different than” two of his
other codefendants—including Stanton-Lipscomb, who was 18 years old at the time of the
shooting—that statement was not clearly erroneous. Taken in context, the court’s
statement is a reflection of its conclusion that Tate, despite being a juvenile, should be held
equally accountable for his intentional acts. Indeed, Tate was convicted of first-degree
premediated murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory, and our Legislature has chosen
to treat offenders who aid and abet the commission of an offense in exactly the same
manner as those who directly commit the offense. See MCL 767.39.
57
People v Tate, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
September 20, 2018 (Docket No. 338360), pp 7-8 (brackets omitted).
21
Ultimately, just as the Court in Jones rejected the defendant’s argument “rest[ing]
on the assumption that meaningful daylight exists between (i) a sentencer’s discretion to
consider youth, and (ii) the sentencer’s actual consideration of youth,” 58 the majority
opinion’s holding suffers the same flaw: requiring sentencing courts to actually (and to a
certain level of satisfaction) consider youth as a mitigating factor even when the sentencing
scheme provides courts with the discretion to do just that. How youth militates for or
against a certain sentence represents a moral judgment left to the discretion of the
sentencing court. 59 Although “one sentencer may weigh the defendant’s youth differently
than another sentencer or an appellate court would, . . . the key point remains that, in a case
involving a murderer under [the age of] 18, a sentencer cannot avoid considering the
defendant’s youth if the sentencer has discretion to consider that mitigating factor.” 60 MCL
769.25 and MCL 769.25a, as well as traditional sentencing principles, provide that
discretion. And the record in each of these cases demonstrates that the sentencing judges—
who presided over defendants’ trials and thus were quite aware of their ages—
appropriately exercised that discretion and considered defendants’ youth in fashioning
sentences proportionate to defendants and their offenses. Because neither court abused its
58
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319.
59
See Skinner, 502 Mich at 115 n 11, citing Kansas v Carr, 577 US 108, 119; 136 S Ct
633; 193 L Ed 2d 535 (2016) (“Whether mitigation exists . . . is largely a judgment call (or
perhaps a value call) . . . . And of course the ultimate question whether mitigating
circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances is mostly a question of mercy—the
quality of which, as we know, is not strained.”).
60
Jones, 593 US at ___; 141 S Ct at 1319-1320.
22
discretion in sentencing defendants to 40 to 60 years’ imprisonment, I would affirm those
sentences.
IV. CONCLUSION
“Whether read broadly or narrowly, Miller creates a legal rule about life-without-
parole sentences. And, whether one looks at [defendants’] sentence[s] formally or
functionally, [they] did not receive a life-without-parole sentence.” 61 “Miller’s holding
simply does not cover a lengthy term of imprisonment that falls short of life without
parole,” 62 and absent a constitutional, statutory, or judicial directive, I would not extend
Miller’s reasoning to term-of-years sentences under MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a.
Although the majority opinion purports to limit its holding to juvenile homicide offenders
sentenced under those statutes, the implication of today’s decision is far greater. Indeed,
the majority opinion repeatedly suggests its ruling applies to all young offenders—
regardless of the severity of their crimes, the sentence imposed, or their juvenile status. 63
I disagree with this Court’s continued extension of Miller beyond the life-without-parole
context for juvenile homicide offenders. 64 For the reasons stated, I would not extend Miller
61
Atkins v Crowell, 945 F3d 476, 478 (CA 6, 2019).
62
Id.
63
See ante at 12 (“Without considering the mitigating factors of youth, then, a sentence
cannot adequately address the reformation of the offender.”); ante at 13 (“Given that youth
is a mitigating factor, it will inevitably factor into Snow’s four considerations.”).
64
See People v Stovall, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 162425)
(ZAHRA, J., dissenting, joined by VIVIANO and CLEMENT, JJ.) (disagreeing with the
extension of Miller’s reasoning to parolable life sentences for juvenile homicide offenders);
People v Parks, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 162086) (CLEMENT,
J., dissenting, joined by ZAHRA and VIVIANO, JJ.) (disagreeing with the extension of
23
to this whole new class of sentences. Instead, traditional sentencing considerations should
apply when the sentence to be imposed on the juvenile homicide offender is less than life
without parole. I would also affirm the 40- to 60-year sentences of these two youths.
Because the majority concludes otherwise, I dissent.
Brian K. Zahra
David F. Viviano
Miller’s reasoning to mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 18-year-old homicide
offenders).
24
People of Michigan v. Tyler Maurice Tate
Combined Opinion