People of Michigan v. Ihab Masalmani

Michigan Supreme Court

People of Michigan v. Ihab Masalmani

924 N.W.2d 585

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 5, 2019

DocketSC: 154773; 154764; 154764; COA: 325662

StatusPublished

This text of 924 N.W.2d 585 (People of Michigan v. Ihab Masalmani) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of Michigan v. Ihab Masalmani, 924 N.W.2d 585 (Mich. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

By order of May 2, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Skinner (Docket No. 152448 ) and People v Hyatt (Docket No. 153081 ). On order of the Court, the cases having been decided on June 20, 2018, 502 Mich 89 , 917 N.W.2d 292 (2018), the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue whether, in exercising its discretion to impose a sentence of life without parole (LWOP), the trial court properly considered the "factors listed in Miller v Alabama , [ 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ] (2012)" as potentially mitigating circumstances. MCL 769.25(6). See also Skinner , 502 Mich at 113-116 , 917 N.W.2d 292 . In particular, the parties shall address: (1) which party, if any, bears the burden of proof of showing that a Miller factor does or does not suggest a LWOP sentence; (2) whether the sentencing court gave proper consideration to the defendant's "chronological age and its hallmark features," Miller , 567 U.S. at 477-478 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , by focusing on his proximity to the bright line age of 18 rather than his individual characteristics; and (3) whether the court properly considered the defendant's family and home environment, which the court characterized as "terrible," and the lack of available treatment programs in the Department of Corrections as weighing against his potential for rehabilitation. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1). The motion to remand is DENIED.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By order of May 2, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Skinner (Docket No. 152448 ) and People v Hyatt (Docket No. 153081 ). On order of the Court, the cases having been decided on June 20, 2018, 502 Mich 89 , 917 N.W.2d 292 (2018), the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue whether, in exercising its discretion to impose a sentence of life without parole (LWOP), the trial court properly considered the "factors listed in Miller v Alabama , [ 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ] (2012)" as potentially mitigating circumstances. MCL 769.25(6). See also Skinner , 502 Mich at 113-116 , 917 N.W.2d 292 . In particular, the parties shall address: (1) which party, if any, bears the burden of proof of showing that a Miller factor does or does not suggest a LWOP sentence; (2) whether the sentencing court gave proper consideration to the defendant's "chronological age and its hallmark features," Miller , 567 U.S. at 477-478 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , by focusing on his proximity to the bright line age of 18 rather than his individual characteristics; and (3) whether the court properly considered the defendant's family and home environment, which the court characterized as "terrible," and the lack of available treatment programs in the Department of Corrections as weighing against his potential for rehabilitation. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1). The motion to remand is DENIED.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

924 N.W.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-ihab-masalmani-mich-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack