is an inevitable effect of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and does not offend the separation of powers doctrine.” Id. “That the prosecutor’s charging decision has an effect on the sentence that the court may impose. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, holding that it does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers or federal and state equal protection and due process guarantees. In the four consolidated cases considered in Conat, 238 Mich App at 138, 144, 146-147, the circuit courts held that MCL 769.1, as amended by 1996 PA 247, unconstitutionally divested the sentencing court of discretion to sentence a juvenile offender convicted of an enumerated serious specified juvenile violation as a juvenile rather than as an adult. Effective January 1, 1997, 1996 PA 247 amended MCL 769.1 to require the circuit court to impose adult sentences upon juveniles convicted of certain specified juvenile violations. simply vest the circuit courts with jurisdiction to hear certain cases that previously came within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate courts.” People v Black, 203 Mich App 428, 429-430 (1994).Īt the time that Black, 203 Mich App 428, was decided, MCL 769.1 required the circuit court, without exception, to conduct a hearing to determine whether to sentence a juvenile convicted in an automatic waiver proceeding as an adult or as a juvenile. The automatic waiver statutes, MCL 600.606 and MCL 764.1f, and court rules, MCR 6.901 et seq., do not violate the separation of powers doctrine because they “do not give prosecutors authority to exercise judicial power. Separation of Powers, Equal Protection, and Due Process Concerns Constitutionality of Mandatory Adult Sentencingġ. See Section 19.4(C) for discussion of juvenile life-without-parole sentences.ī. “he decision whether to impose a sentence of life without parole by a judge, rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” 2 People v Skinner (Skinner II), 502 Mich 89, 107-108 (2018) (holding that MCL 769.25 does not violate the Sixth or Eighth Amendments “because neither nor the Eighth Amendment requires a judge to find any particular fact before imposing life without parole instead life without parole is authorized by the jury’s verdict alone”), rev’g People v Skinner (Skinner I), 312 Mich App 15 (2015) and aff’g in part and rev’g in part People v Hyatt, 316 Mich App 368 (2016). Under circumstances in which MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a applies to an offender, the prosecuting attorney must file a motion if he or she intends to seek imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. A juvenile convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory life-without-parole sentence may be subject to the sentencing requirements set out in MCL 769.25 or MCL 769.25a. Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460, 465, 489 (2012) (homicide offender under the age of 18 may not be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole unless a judge or jury first has the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances) Graham v Florida, 560 US 48, 82 (2010) (sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be imposed upon a defendant under the age of 18 for a nonhomicide offense).
However, an offender who was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of an offense is not subject to the imposition of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
“If the juvenile has been convicted of an offense listed in MCL 769.1(1)(a)-( l ), the court must sentence the juvenile in the same manner as an adult.” MCR 6.931(A). 16.11 Mandatory Imposition of Adult Sentence