By Nick Smith
Gongwer News Service
Michigan Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case involving whether the sentence imposed on an offender who was under age 18 when convicted was unconstitutional and whether the offender’s age was considered as a mitigating factor.
Before the high court was People v. Eads, a case involving James Eads, who in 1992 was convicted of second-degree murder and felony-firearm for crimes committed when he was 16 years old.
Eads was sentenced shortly after he turned 17 years old, and the guidelines suggested a sentence of 12 to 25 years of imprisonment or life in prison. Victim impact statements and the prosecution's request for 60 to 120 years of imprisonment led the court to eschew a life sentence because it offered the possibility of parole, departing from guidelines for the defendant to be sentenced as an adult with a 50- to 75-year term.
The Court of Appeals took up the case on remand after first upholding the sentence. It issued a published opinion holding the 50- to 75-year sentence exceeded the constitutional standard for cruel or unusual punishment under People v. Stovall, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that found a parolable life sentence for defendant who committed second degree murder while a juvenile constitutes cruel or unusual punishment.
Whether Stovall applies to this case is one of two key questions weighed by the court. The other task is to determine if the 2022 People v. Boykin ruling, which requires a court to consider mitigating circumstances of youth, applies.
Tim Baughman, representing the state, argued the Court of Appeals was in effect creating a new constitutional rule by using the Stovall case to apply to at least some terms-of-years sentences for individuals under age 18 for second-degree murder.
Baughman said the question is not whether an individual juvenile’s brain is fully developed but whether they are sufficiently developed at the time of the alleged crime to be held fully responsible under criminal law.
“We believe that is a question that belongs to the Legislature,” Baughman said. “Much of the material that has been presented to this court treats the court as more of a Committee of the Whole of the Legislature, giving the court information that has never been presented to courts below, to ask the court to pass as a normative matter, what is the best thing? What is that? Should these individuals we treated differently?”
Baughman also argued the appeals court had applied the Boykin case retroactively and misapplied it. Further, he stated the Court of Appeals applied People v. Milbourn to find that the sentence given to Eads was disproportionate despite that argument being rejected over 30 years ago.
Justice Noah Hood asked Baughman for his response to the arguments being made by the defense, that the 50- to 75-year sentence is a de facto life sentence.
Baughman said there are various offenses in Michigan statute that carry a life sentence or a set number of years, not just second-degree murder.
“There are a number of statutes, and the Legislature has since statehood not said: ‘we’re going to treat juveniles as a categorical matter differently than we treat adults,’ and that is their decision to make,” Baughman said.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh pointed to the sentence given to Eads, which she said was above that of first-degree murder.
“How can that stand under Stovall?” Cavanagh said.
To this, Baughman stated sentencing can be all over the place, with someone receiving a lower sentence for a more serious crime.
Phillip Comorski, representing Eads, argued Stovall does apply in this case.
“Eads had the unfortunate result of being acquitted of first-degree murder, where he would be entitled to avail himself of the remedies of People v. Parks,” Comorski said. “He was convicted of second-degree murder, and the judge at the time of sentencing noted that a life sentence would be a lot easier than if I impose this 50-year harsh sentence, which specifically stated at sentencing he wanted to keep him in until he was at least 50 years old or he was old enough to where he couldn’t harm anyone anymore.”
Comorski said it was clear that the judge’s intent was to keep Eads in prison for life, and in effect he was given a de facto life sentence.
He further argued Eads was entitled to relief under Boykin because age was not a mitigating factor considered by the sentencing judge. Also, Comorski said the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the Boykin decision applied to collateral review in the case.
Comorski said Eads’ sentence was beyond the prescribed guidelines, adding that a minimum sentence of more than 40 years and/or a maximum sentence of more than 60 years is cruel and unusual punishment for someone under age 18 for a crime less than first-degree murder.
“We don’t want to just give sentencing based on retribution of the dependent only, you want to be able to have juveniles have access to the system where they can rehabilitate themselves and hopefully come back as productive members of the society,” Comorski said.
Court and public safety groups issued statements following Wednesday’s oral arguments, thanking the high court for taking up the case while urging the justices to rule sentences like those in the Eads case to be unconstitutional.
“Any parent knows that kids can sometimes do dumb things, harmful things, but these do not necessarily reflect on the adult they will grow into,” Chuck Warpehoski, project director for the Michigan Collaborative to End Mass Incarceration, said. “By continuing to punish people the crimes of their childhood, even after they’ve taken accountability and rehabilitated, extreme sentences disregards the potential of all people have for change and redemption.”
Cassie Larrieux, senior policy and research specialist for Safe and Just Michigan, agreed.
“There may be a technical difference between a life sentence and a term of years, but when that term of years is extremely long, there is no effective difference,” Larrieux said. “A virtual life sentence – like the 50- to 75-year sentence given to Mr. Eads in his youth – should also be considered unconstitutional.”
Jose Burgos, policy advocate with the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, echoed the other groups’ statements.
“Calling a term-of-years sentence does not change its reality,” Burgos said. “When a child is given a sentence so long it extinguishes any meaningful chance at life beyond prison, it becomes exactly what the
Constitution forbids,” Burgos said.
Gongwer News Service
Michigan Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case involving whether the sentence imposed on an offender who was under age 18 when convicted was unconstitutional and whether the offender’s age was considered as a mitigating factor.
Before the high court was People v. Eads, a case involving James Eads, who in 1992 was convicted of second-degree murder and felony-firearm for crimes committed when he was 16 years old.
Eads was sentenced shortly after he turned 17 years old, and the guidelines suggested a sentence of 12 to 25 years of imprisonment or life in prison. Victim impact statements and the prosecution's request for 60 to 120 years of imprisonment led the court to eschew a life sentence because it offered the possibility of parole, departing from guidelines for the defendant to be sentenced as an adult with a 50- to 75-year term.
The Court of Appeals took up the case on remand after first upholding the sentence. It issued a published opinion holding the 50- to 75-year sentence exceeded the constitutional standard for cruel or unusual punishment under People v. Stovall, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that found a parolable life sentence for defendant who committed second degree murder while a juvenile constitutes cruel or unusual punishment.
Whether Stovall applies to this case is one of two key questions weighed by the court. The other task is to determine if the 2022 People v. Boykin ruling, which requires a court to consider mitigating circumstances of youth, applies.
Tim Baughman, representing the state, argued the Court of Appeals was in effect creating a new constitutional rule by using the Stovall case to apply to at least some terms-of-years sentences for individuals under age 18 for second-degree murder.
Baughman said the question is not whether an individual juvenile’s brain is fully developed but whether they are sufficiently developed at the time of the alleged crime to be held fully responsible under criminal law.
“We believe that is a question that belongs to the Legislature,” Baughman said. “Much of the material that has been presented to this court treats the court as more of a Committee of the Whole of the Legislature, giving the court information that has never been presented to courts below, to ask the court to pass as a normative matter, what is the best thing? What is that? Should these individuals we treated differently?”
Baughman also argued the appeals court had applied the Boykin case retroactively and misapplied it. Further, he stated the Court of Appeals applied People v. Milbourn to find that the sentence given to Eads was disproportionate despite that argument being rejected over 30 years ago.
Justice Noah Hood asked Baughman for his response to the arguments being made by the defense, that the 50- to 75-year sentence is a de facto life sentence.
Baughman said there are various offenses in Michigan statute that carry a life sentence or a set number of years, not just second-degree murder.
“There are a number of statutes, and the Legislature has since statehood not said: ‘we’re going to treat juveniles as a categorical matter differently than we treat adults,’ and that is their decision to make,” Baughman said.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh pointed to the sentence given to Eads, which she said was above that of first-degree murder.
“How can that stand under Stovall?” Cavanagh said.
To this, Baughman stated sentencing can be all over the place, with someone receiving a lower sentence for a more serious crime.
Phillip Comorski, representing Eads, argued Stovall does apply in this case.
“Eads had the unfortunate result of being acquitted of first-degree murder, where he would be entitled to avail himself of the remedies of People v. Parks,” Comorski said. “He was convicted of second-degree murder, and the judge at the time of sentencing noted that a life sentence would be a lot easier than if I impose this 50-year harsh sentence, which specifically stated at sentencing he wanted to keep him in until he was at least 50 years old or he was old enough to where he couldn’t harm anyone anymore.”
Comorski said it was clear that the judge’s intent was to keep Eads in prison for life, and in effect he was given a de facto life sentence.
He further argued Eads was entitled to relief under Boykin because age was not a mitigating factor considered by the sentencing judge. Also, Comorski said the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the Boykin decision applied to collateral review in the case.
Comorski said Eads’ sentence was beyond the prescribed guidelines, adding that a minimum sentence of more than 40 years and/or a maximum sentence of more than 60 years is cruel and unusual punishment for someone under age 18 for a crime less than first-degree murder.
“We don’t want to just give sentencing based on retribution of the dependent only, you want to be able to have juveniles have access to the system where they can rehabilitate themselves and hopefully come back as productive members of the society,” Comorski said.
Court and public safety groups issued statements following Wednesday’s oral arguments, thanking the high court for taking up the case while urging the justices to rule sentences like those in the Eads case to be unconstitutional.
“Any parent knows that kids can sometimes do dumb things, harmful things, but these do not necessarily reflect on the adult they will grow into,” Chuck Warpehoski, project director for the Michigan Collaborative to End Mass Incarceration, said. “By continuing to punish people the crimes of their childhood, even after they’ve taken accountability and rehabilitated, extreme sentences disregards the potential of all people have for change and redemption.”
Cassie Larrieux, senior policy and research specialist for Safe and Just Michigan, agreed.
“There may be a technical difference between a life sentence and a term of years, but when that term of years is extremely long, there is no effective difference,” Larrieux said. “A virtual life sentence – like the 50- to 75-year sentence given to Mr. Eads in his youth – should also be considered unconstitutional.”
Jose Burgos, policy advocate with the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, echoed the other groups’ statements.
“Calling a term-of-years sentence does not change its reality,” Burgos said. “When a child is given a sentence so long it extinguishes any meaningful chance at life beyond prison, it becomes exactly what the
Constitution forbids,” Burgos said.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
