Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
PEOPLE v POOLE
Docket No. 166813. Argued January 22, 2025 (Calendar No. 1). Decided April 1, 2025.
John A. Poole was convicted in 2002 of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316; being a felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, following a jury trial in the Wayne Circuit Court. Poole was 18 years old at the time of the murder and had been paid by his uncle to kill the victim. The trial court, Bruce U. Morrow, J., imposed a mandatory sentence on defendant of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals, OWENS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and SCHUETTE, JJ., affirmed defendant’s convictions in an unpublished per curiam opinion, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal. 476 Mich 863 (2006). Defendant moved for relief from judgment multiple times, and the Supreme Court previously granted defendant’s application for leave to appeal following the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460 (2012), and Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US 190 (2016), to determine whether those decisions should be applied to defendants who were over the age of 17 when the decisions were issued. 507 Mich 993 (2021). After the Supreme Court’s decision in People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), holding that the Michigan Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel or unusual punishment” supported extending Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life sentences for offenders 17 years old and younger to 18-year-olds, the Supreme Court remanded this case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether defendant was entitled to relief under Parks. 510 Mich 851 (2022). The Court of Appeals, LETICA, P.J., and BORRELLO and RIORDAN, JJ., held that Parks applied retroactively under a state retroactivity analysis and that the holding in Parks was substantive, rather than procedural, in nature. ___ Mich App ___ (January 18, 2024) (Docket No. 352569). The Court of Appeals vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded to the trial court pursuant to MCL 769.25. The prosecution applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that Parks applied retroactively. The Supreme Court granted the application. 513 Mich 1144 (2024).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, the Supreme Court held:
Under a state retroactivity analysis, the holding in Parks—that mandatory sentences of life without parole violated the prohibition in Const 1963, art 1, § 16 against “cruel or unusual punishment” for juvenile homicide offenders who were 18 years old at the time of the offense— applied retroactively because Parks announced a substantive rule. To the extent that the state retroactivity analysis in People v Carp, 496 Mich 440 (2014), survived Montgomery, it was overruled. 1. Under Linkletter v Walker, 381 US 618 (1965), and People v Hampton, 384 Mich 669 (1971), this Court has stated that there are three factors to consider when determining whether an opinion should be applied retroactively: (1) the purpose of the new rule, (2) the general reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect on the administration of justice. The Court affirmed the use of the Linkletter-Hampton factors in People v Gay, 407 Mich 681 (1980), but noted that the factors played a predominant role when the court was considering procedural rules, whereas when substantive rights of a fundamental nature were affected, they were normally to be accorded retrospective application. In cases involving substantive rules, the Linkletter-Hampton factors may be addressed but will have a determinative effect only in rare instances. Although the United States Supreme Court abandoned the Linkletter test in Teague v Lane, 489 US 288 (1989), Michigan courts continued to apply the Linkletter-Hampton factors to assess retroactivity at the state level after Teague.
2. After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller concluding that mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the Michigan Supreme Court determined in Carp that Miller announced a procedural rule that did not apply retroactively under either the federal retroactivity analysis or under the state test for determining retroactive application. However, the United States Supreme Court later issued Montgomery, which held that Miller’s holding was substantive and applies retroactively.
3. Because this case involved the application of a holding grounded in the Michigan Constitution, the retroactivity analysis in Gay was controlling. Under Gay, the first question at issue was whether the holding in Parks was procedural or substantive. In Montgomery, the United States Supreme Court explained that substantive rules set forth categorical guarantees that place certain criminal laws and punishment beyond the state’s power to impose, whereas procedural rules are designed to enhance the accuracy of a conviction or sentence by regulating the manner of determining a defendant’s culpability. The United States Supreme Court applied this standard in Montgomery to conclude that Miller announced a substantive rule with retroactive effect in cases on collateral review. Although the Montgomery analysis was not binding on the Michigan Supreme Court, it was persuasive in this case, given that the Court’s holding in Parks was an extension of Miller, though grounded in the Michigan Constitution’s “cruel or unusual punishment” provision.
4. As noted in Gay, the Linkletter-Hampton factors may have a determinative effect in the rare case in which substantive rights are affected. Therefore, an examination of the factors was necessary to determine whether Parks applies retroactively. Given its potential application here, it was necessary to consider Carp’s state retroactivity analysis. In Carp, the Court held that the Linkletter-Hampton factors did not warrant a retroactive application of Miller. But Carp’s federal retroactivity analysis was vacated by Montgomery, and although Montgomery did not directly affect Carp’s state retroactivity analysis, it rendered this part of its holding toothless, given that it could not be more limited than the result obtained under the broader federal test. To the extent that the state retroactivity analysis in Carp survived Montgomery, it was overruled. Further, Carp erred in its analysis of the Linkletter-Hampton factors. Carp held that the first factor was to be given the most weight in a court’s consideration of the factors and that only new rules of procedure that implicate the guilt or innocence of a defendant were entitled to retroactive application. In coming to this conclusion, however, Carp relied on caselaw, including Hampton, that did not support its understanding of the first factor. Rather, when properly understood, Hampton merely surveyed relevant caselaw from the United States Supreme Court to determine whether that Court had established a pattern regarding when retrospective application was appropriate. As part of its survey, the Hampton Court noted that the United States Supreme Court had applied decisions retroactively when the guilt or innocence of the defendant was at stake and prospectively when this was not the case. However, this was merely a survey and did not indicate that Hampton stood for the proposition that the first Linkletter-Hampton factor only favors retroactive application when a defendant’s guilt or innocence is at stake. Accordingly, under a proper understanding of Hampton, it was clear that Miller favored retroactive application. Given that Miller held that juveniles should not be barred from the possibility of rehabilitation by the imposition of a mandatory life sentence and that only the rare juvenile would be found irredeemable and deserving of a life sentence, the Court in Carp incorrectly held that the first Linkletter-Hampton factor did not favor retroactive application. In discussing the second and third factors, Carp focused on the effect of the new rule on prosecutors. Instead, the focus should be on those defendants who received a mandatory sentence of life without parole for homicide offenses they committed as juveniles but whose cases were finished on direct review when Miller was decided. Reliance on pre-Miller caselaw would be detrimental to this class of defendants. Accordingly, Carp erred in its application of the second factor. Regarding the third factor, Carp correctly noted that there is a burden on the administration of justice to the extent that resentencing hearings require judicial resources, but this factor was outweighed by the consideration of the other two factors and by the conclusion that Parks announced a substantive rule. Next in the stare decisis inquiry was whether Carp defied practical workability, whether reliance interests would work an undue hardship if it were overturned, and whether changes in the law or facts no longer justified it. While Carp did not defy practical workability, there has been no significant reliance on Carp, given that it was reversed on federal grounds not long after it was decided, and Montgomery was a meaningful change in the law that entirely undermined Carp’s substantive holding. Accordingly, the stare decisis doctrine did not prevent Carp’s state retroactivity analysis from being overturned.
5. The substantive analysis of the Linkletter-Hampton factors that supported the conclusion that Carp should be overruled also supported the conclusion that Parks should be given retroactive application. The first factor favored retroactive application because, like Miller, Parks declared mandatory life-without-parole sentences unconstitutional for an entire class. The second factor also favored retroactive application because reliance on pre-Parks caselaw would be detrimental to the class of defendants who received mandatory sentences of life without parole for offenses committed when they were 18 years old, but whose cases were finished on direct review when Parks was decided. The third factor did not favor retroactive application of Parks, given the use of judicial resources and the impact of resentencing hearings on those affected by the crimes committed by the affected class of defendants. On balance, however, the analysis of the Linkletter- Hampton factors reaffirmed the conclusion that Parks was entitled to retroactive application as a substantive rule under Gay.
Affirmed and remanded.
Justice THOMAS did not participate because of her prior involvement in this case. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
OPINION Chief Justice: Justices: Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas
FILED April 1, 2025
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 166813
JOHN ANTONIO POOLE,
Defendant-Appellee.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH (except THOMAS, J.)
BERNSTEIN, J. This case concerns the application of People v Parks, 510 Mich 225; 987 NW2d
161 (2022); specifically, whether Parks applies retroactively to cases where the period for
direct review had expired when Parks was decided. Under our state retroactivity
principles, we hold that it does. We therefore remand this case to the trial court for
resentencing proceedings pursuant to MCL 769.25a. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The underlying facts of this case have not changed since it was last before us. We
previously summarized the relevant facts as follows:
[D]efendant, John Antonio Poole, was convicted of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316, after his older uncle paid him to kill the victim, and defendant was given a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant was 18 years old at the time of the murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, and we denied leave to appeal. People v Poole, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 5, 2005 (Docket No. 244023), lv den 476 Mich 863 (2006). Defendant has twice previously moved for relief from judgment, pursuant to MCR 6.500. This is his third such motion. Defendant challenges the validity of his mandatory life-without-parole sentence in light of Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460[; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407] (2012), which was determined to be retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review in Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US 190[; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599] (2016). The trial court returned his motion, determining that Miller was not retroactively applicable to defendant’s case. The Court of Appeals dismissed defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal, because defendant improperly sought to appeal the rejection of a successive motion for relief from judgment, citing MCR 6.502(G). [People v Poole, 510 Mich 851, 851 (2022).]
We previously granted defendant’s application for leave to appeal, asking among the
questions to be briefed whether Miller, which held that mandatory life without parole for a
juvenile convicted of a homicide offense constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as
prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, should be extended to individuals like defendant
who were over 17 years old at the time they committed their homicide offenses. People v
Poole, 507 Mich 993, 993-994 (2021). Following oral argument, we held that the lower
courts erred by dismissing defendant’s application for leave to appeal because defendant’s
motion was based on a retroactive change in law that thus overcame the procedural bar in
MCR 6.502(G). Poole, 510 Mich at 851. We heard Parks on the same day. In that case,
2 we held that federal precedent concerning the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against
“cruel and unusual punishments” did not support extending Miller’s protections to 18-year-
olds. Parks, 510 Mich at 245, 247. However, we held that our state Constitution’s broader
prohibition against “cruel or unusual punishment” under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 did support
such an extension. Id. at 247, 268. Following Parks, we remanded defendant’s case to the
Court of Appeals for that Court to determine whether defendant was entitled to relief under
MCR 6.508(D), asking whether Parks applied to defendant’s case. Poole, 510 Mich at
851-852.
On remand, the Court of Appeals held that Parks applied retroactively under a state
retroactivity analysis and that the holding in Parks was substantive because it affected
“substantive rights of a fundamental nature . . . .” People v Poole, ___ Mich App ___, ___;
___ NW3d ___ (January 18, 2024) (Docket No. 352569); slip op at 10-13 (quotation marks
and citation omitted). The Court of Appeals thus vacated defendant’s sentence and
remanded for proceedings consistent with MCL 769.25. 1 Id. at ___; slip op at 13. The
prosecution sought leave to appeal in this Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred
1 “Post-Miller, and in anticipation of Montgomery, Michigan’s Legislature established juvenile resentencing procedures that are consistent with these cases. MCL 769.25a; MCL 769.25.” Parks, 510 Mich at 240. In Parks, we held that defendants who had been subject to mandatory life-without-parole sentences for first-degree murder offenses that were committed when they were 18 years old were entitled to the protections of MCL 769.25. Id. at 268. But Parks involved a case that was still on direct appellate review, such that a discussion of retroactivity was not required. Although the Court of Appeals here remanded for proceedings consistent with MCL 769.25, because defendant’s case is no longer on direct appellate review, we find that MCL 769.25a is instead the better analogue here, given that MCL 769.25a governs resentencing procedures for those individuals to whom Miller was applied retroactively via Montgomery.
3 by concluding that Parks applies retroactively, and we granted the application. People v
Poole, 513 Mich 1144 (2024).
II. ANALYSIS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s denial of a motion for
relief from judgment. People v Johnson, 502 Mich 541, 564; 918 NW2d 676 (2018). “An
abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable
and principled outcomes.” People v Franklin, 500 Mich 92, 100; 894 NW2d 561 (2017)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
“The retroactivity of a court’s ruling presents an issue of law that this Court reviews
de novo.” People v Maxson, 482 Mich 385, 387; 759 NW2d 817 (2008).
B. GENERAL RETROACTIVITY PRINCIPLES
In People v Hampton, 384 Mich 669; 187 NW2d 404 (1971), this Court relied on
the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Linkletter v Walker, 381 US 618; 85 S Ct
1731; 14 L Ed 2d 601 (1965), to formulate a standard for determining whether an opinion
should be applied retroactively. This Court articulated the standard as follows:
The United States Supreme Court has discussed various factors to be used in determining whether a law should be applied retroactively or prospectively. There are three key factors which the court has taken into account: (1) the purpose of the new rule; (2) the general reliance on the old rule; and (3) the effect on the administration of justice. [Hampton, 384 Mich at 674.]
In People v Gay, 407 Mich 681, 705; 289 NW2d 651 (1980), this Court noted that
the Linkletter-Hampton factors were appropriately considered when determining whether
4 a holding in a criminal case should be applied retroactively. However, this Court noted a
significant limitation to the use of these factors:
When considering procedural rules governing trial conduct, the Linkletter- Hampton criteria play a predominant role. However, when non-procedural or substantive rights of a fundamental nature are affected, they are normally to be accorded retrospective application. The Linkletter-Hampton considerations may be addressed, but only in the rare instance will they have determinative effect. [Gay, 407 Mich at 706.]
Thus, the importance of the Linkletter-Hampton factors is greatly circumscribed when
substantive rules or rights are implicated in a holding, and retrospective application is
favored.
In Teague v Lane, 489 US 288, 302-303; 109 S Ct 1060; 103 L Ed 2d 334 (1989),
the United States Supreme Court departed from the use of the Linkletter test, noting that it
had been subject to much criticism. Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion set forth a general
rule of nonretroactivity for cases on collateral review: “Unless they fall within an exception
to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to
those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.” 2 Id. at 310.
See also Montgomery, 577 US at 198 (explaining the Supreme Court’s retroactivity
approach in light of Teague). Notably, the United States Supreme Court has explained that
state courts are not required to adopt Teague’s retroactivity framework for state
2 These two exceptions concern rules that place “certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe” and rules that require “the observance of those procedures that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Teague, 489 US at 307 (quotation marks, citations, and ellipsis omitted).
5 retroactivity purposes. Danforth v Minnesota, 552 US 264, 280-281; 128 S Ct 1029; 169
L Ed 2d 859 (2008).
Accordingly, that the United States Supreme Court has abandoned the Linkletter
test for federal retroactivity purposes says nothing about how Michigan courts continue to
assess retroactivity in the state context, given that this Court adopted the Linkletter test to
serve as its own retroactivity standard in Hampton. Since Teague, Michigan courts have
continued to apply the Linkletter-Hampton factors to determine whether a new rule of
criminal law applies retroactively to final judgments on collateral review. 3 See Schafer v
Kent Co, ___ Mich ___, ____; ___ NW3d ___ (July 29, 2024) (Docket No. 164975); slip
op at 19 n 60.
C. MANDATORY LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
In Miller, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a mandatory sentence
of life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense violated the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Relying on caselaw and
scientific research addressing the diminished culpability of juveniles, the Supreme Court
held that “a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances
before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.” Miller, 567 US at 489.
Mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles were thus found to be
unconstitutional.
After Miller was decided, this Court considered whether Miller should be applied
retroactively under either the federal or state tests for retroactivity in a set of consolidated
3 We reject the prosecution’s invitation to abandon the Linkletter-Hampton factors.
6 cases involving three separate defendants. People v Carp, 496 Mich 440; 852 NW2d 801
(2014). As to the federal test, this Court first determined that the Miller rule was a
procedural rule that did not satisfy either of the Teague exceptions. Id. at 495. Having
determined that Miller did not apply retroactively under the federal test, this Court then
examined whether retroactive application was nonetheless appropriate under the state test,
noting that “Teague provides a floor for when a new rule of criminal procedure must be
applied retroactively, with a state nonetheless free to adopt its own broader test for
requiring the retroactive application of a new federal or state constitutional rule.” Id. at
496. Without citing Gay, this Court directly proceeded to apply the Linkletter-Hampton
factors.
Under the first factor, which considers the purpose of the new rule, this Court held
that
when a new rule “concerns the ascertainment of guilt or innocence, retroactive application may be appropriate.” [People v Young, 410 Mich 363, 367; 301 NW2d 803 (1981)], citing Hampton, 384 Mich 689 (emphasis added). Conversely, “[w]hen the ascertainment of guilt or innocence is not at stake, prospective application is possible” because “the purposes of the rule can be effectuated by prospective application.” People v Markham, 397 Mich 530, 535; 245 NW2d 41 (1976). Consistent with this standard for when a rule should be applied only prospectively, “a new rule of procedure . . . which does not affect the integrity of the fact-finding process should be given [only] prospective effect.” Young, 410 Mich at 367. [Carp, 496 Mich at 497-498.]
Although the defendant argued that sentencing concerns the “integrity of the fact-finding
process,” this Court rejected the argument, noting that “[i]n every case to date in which this
Court has applied the state retroactivity test, the ‘integrity of the fact-finding process’ has
always been referred to in the context of determining a defendant’s ‘guilt or innocence.’ ”
7 Carp, 496 Mich at 499, quoting Maxson, 482 Mich at 393-394, which in turn quoted People
v Sexton, 458 Mich 43, 62; 580 NW2d 404 (1998), quoting Young, 410 Mich at 367. This
Court thus held that the first factor did not favor retroactivity, stating that “the general
principle of nonretroactivity for new rules of criminal procedure, to which Michigan
adheres and which informs this state’s retroactivity analysis, is properly served, in our
judgment, by applying retroactively only those new rules of procedure that implicate the
guilt or innocence of a defendant.” Carp, 496 Mich at 500.
Having held that the first factor counseled against the retroactive application of
Miller, this Court reasoned that the first factor is to be afforded greater weight when
compared to the second and third factors. Id. at 502.
In light of the weight to be afforded the first factor when it clearly preponderates against retroactive application, our unified consideration of the second and third factors would need to favor retroactive application to a substantial degree in order for Miller to satisfy the requirements for retroactive application under our state test. [Id. at 503.]
This Court noted that the second factor must be considered both from the perspective of
the prosecutors who had acted in good-faith reliance on the old rule as well as the affected
class of defendants. This Court held that the state prosecutors had relied upon the old rule
and that it would be greatly burdensome to comply with the new rule and that this also
reflected upon our consideration of the third factor, as it would mirror the burden placed
on the administration of justice. Thus, this Court determined that the prosecutors had acted
in significant and justified reliance upon the old rule and that the class of defendants had
not relied on the old rule to any detriment. Id. at 506-509. Accordingly, this Court found
8 that Miller was also not entitled to retroactive application under the state test for
retroactivity. Id. at 511-512.
Significantly, two of the defendants in the consolidated Carp cases filed petitions
for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. While those petitions were pending,
the Supreme Court issued Montgomery, where it relied on Teague to determine that Miller
is a substantive rule that applies retroactively:
Because Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption, it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for a class of defendants because of their status—that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth. As a result, Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional law. Like other substantive rules, Miller is retroactive because it necessarily carries a significant risk that a defendant—here, the vast majority of juvenile offenders—faces a punishment that the law cannot impose on him. [Montgomery, 577 US at 208-209 (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).]
After Montgomery was decided, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in
these cases, vacated the judgments, and remanded the cases to this Court for further
consideration in light of Montgomery. Carp v Michigan, 577 US 1186 (2016); Davis v
Michigan, 577 US 1186 (2016). We then issued orders in those cases reversing the lower
court opinions, vacating the defendants’ sentences, and remanding to the trial courts for
resentencing pursuant to MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. People v Carp, 499 Mich 903
(2016); People v Davis, 499 Mich 903 (2016). Leave to appeal was denied in all other
respects. Carp, 499 Mich at 903; Davis, 499 Mich at 904.
9 III. APPLICATION
A. PROCEDURE VERSUS SUBSTANCE
This case involves the application of a holding grounded in our state Constitution.
Parks, 510 Mich at 268. Accordingly, the retroactivity analysis outlined in Gay controls:
substantive rules should normally be given retroactive application. Gay, 407 Mich at 706.
Under Gay, the initial question is whether the Parks holding was merely procedural, or
whether it concerned substantive rights of a fundamental nature. We find the United States
Supreme Court’s discussion of this distinction helpful here:
Substantive rules . . . set forth categorical constitutional guarantees that place certain criminal laws and punishment altogether beyond the State’s power to impose. It follows that when a State enforces a proscription or penalty barred by the Constitution, the resulting conviction or sentence is, by definition, unlawful. Procedural rules, in contrast, are designed to enhance the accuracy of a conviction or sentence by regulating the manner of determining the defendant’s culpability. [Montgomery, 577 US at 201 (quotation marks and citations omitted).]
In Montgomery, the United States Supreme Court applied this standard and held that
“Miller announced a substantive rule that is retroactive in cases on collateral review.” Id.
at 206. Although not binding on this Court, we find the Montgomery analysis to be
persuasive in this case, given that our holding in Parks was an extension of Miller, albeit
grounded in our state’s “cruel or unusual punishment” provision in Const 1963, art 1, § 16.
We therefore conclude that the Parks holding was substantive because, like Miller, it
“necessarily carries a significant risk that a defendant . . . faces a punishment that the law
cannot impose upon him.” Montgomery, 577 US at 208-209 (quotation marks, citations,
and brackets omitted).
10 Our holding in this case is consistent with this Court’s practice of providing relief
to everyone serving a sentence that has later been found to be invalidated. See People v
Jahner, 433 Mich 490, 504; 446 NW2d 151 (1989); People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 42;
485 NW2d 866 (1992) (“Finally, our decision today necessarily invalidates the sentences
of all defendants currently incarcerated under the same penalty, and for committing the
same offense, as the defendants at bar.”). Because the Parks rule is substantive, this Court
must apply it retroactively “to assure the fair distribution of a fundamental right.” Gay,
407 Mich at 709.
B. LINKLETTER-HAMPTON FACTORS
Although Gay noted that a substantive rule is typically accorded retroactive
application, it also acknowledged that the Linkletter-Hampton factors continue to have
limited utility, given that they may have a determinative effect in the rare case. Gay, 407
Mich at 706. In other words, a substantive rule might not be applied retroactively if the
Linkletter-Hampton factors strongly indicate otherwise.
An examination of the Linkletter-Hampton factors is thus necessary to confirm
whether Parks should have retroactive application. Because Parks itself was an extension
of Miller, our first point of reference in addressing the Linkletter-Hampton factors here
must be Carp, which held that the factors did not warrant a retroactive application of Miller.
Carp, 496 Mich at 511-512. Although the federal retroactivity analysis of Carp was
vacated by Montgomery, see Carp, 577 US 1186; Davis, 577 US 1186, the parties in the
instant case vigorously dispute the impact that the orders from both the United States
Supreme Court and this Court had on the state retroactivity analysis of Carp. Because
11 Teague provided the floor for constitutional purposes, the United States Supreme Court’s
conclusion in Montgomery necessitated reversals in the consolidated Carp cases,
notwithstanding this Court’s state retroactivity analysis to the contrary. Although
Montgomery did not directly affect this Court’s state retroactivity analysis in Carp, it
rendered this portion of the holding toothless because it could not be more limited than the
result obtained under the broader federal test. See Danforth, 552 US at 289.
Given its potential application here, we must first consider what value this portion
of the Carp holding continues to have. For the sake of simplicity, to the extent that the
state retroactivity analysis of Carp survived Montgomery, we now explicitly overrule it.
In examining the first Linkletter-Hampton factor, Carp held that only new rules of
procedure that implicate the guilt or innocence of a defendant are entitled to retroactive
application. Carp, 496 Mich at 500. Setting aside our contrary determination under Gay
that Parks, like Miller, is a substantive rule and not a procedural one, we find this holding
untenable for a number of reasons. First, even if the first factor is properly accorded the
most weight, it is unclear what use the other two factors of the Linkletter-Hampton test
ever have if the first factor already winnows down the potential universe of retroactive
application to this narrow category of procedural rules. In other words, under this reading
of the first factor, we question why a three-factor test is at all necessary. Second, and more
importantly, we question the basis for this Court’s holding that the first factor is thus
limited.
In Carp, this Court suggested that all prior applications of the Linkletter-Hampton
test have referred to the integrity of the fact-finding process in the context of determining
guilt or innocence. Id. at 499. In support of this proposition, the Court cited five cases:
12 Maxson, Sexton, Young, Markham, and Hampton. However, Maxson merely quoted Sexton
without adding any independent analysis, Maxson, 482 Mich at 393-394, while Sexton
itself quoted Young without adding any additional analysis, Sexton, 458 Mich at 62-63.
Young also did not include any independent analysis, and instead of quoting relevant
language from Hampton, Young only refers to Hampton generally in support of this
proposition. Young, 410 Mich at 367. The same is true of Markham, which at least gives
a pincite for Hampton. Markham, 397 Mich at 534-535.
It is thus clear that the only support for this understanding of the first Linkletter-
Hampton factor derives from Hampton itself, where this Court adopted the Linkletter
framework. Crucially, however, Hampton does not stand for the proposition that the Carp
Court ascribed to it. In reading Hampton, it is clear that this Court was merely surveying
relevant decisions from the United States Supreme Court to determine whether that Court
had established a pattern regarding when retroactive application may be appropriate.
Hampton, 384 Mich at 676-677. In surveying these cases, this Court noted that the United
States Supreme Court had applied decisions retroactively when the guilt or innocence of
the defendant was at stake and had applied decisions prospectively when that was not the
case. Id. However, this was merely a survey of then relevant Supreme Court caselaw in a
case in which the defendant’s guilt or innocence was clearly at issue. 4 When read in its
appropriate context, Hampton does not and cannot stand for a definitive rule that the first
Linkletter-Hampton factor favors retroactive application only when a rule concerns a
4 Montgomery itself is an example of how United States Supreme Court retroactivity caselaw is not this easily defined, given that it does not involve a determination of a defendant’s substantive guilt or innocence.
13 defendant’s guilt or innocence. To the extent that our prior caselaw has misread Hampton
to state otherwise, it has done so largely without consideration of the appropriate nuances,
and we disavow this characterization of Hampton.
When considered pursuant to a proper understanding of Hampton, it is clear that the
purpose of Miller favored retroactive application. See Montgomery, 577 US at 212. The
purpose of the Miller holding was to prevent juveniles from being barred from the
possibility of rehabilitation by the imposition of a mandatory life-without-parole sentence.
Miller stands for the proposition that it is the rare juvenile who will be found to be
irredeemable and deserving of such a sentence, as the majority are better served by a term-
of-years sentence. See id. at 209. Given that the purpose of Miller was to declare that a
certain sentence was unconstitutional for an entire class, with rare exceptions where the
burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish otherwise during individualized
sentencing proceedings, it is clear that the Carp opinion incorrectly held that the first
Linkletter-Hampton factor did not favor retroactive application.
In its discussion of the second and third factors, Carp focused on the impact on
prosecutors who relied in good faith on the old rule. Carp, 496 Mich at 503-504. Although
it is true that these mandatory sentences were previously considered constitutional, it is
confusing for a court to rely on the good-faith reliance of individual prosecutors when
considering the imposition of mandatory sentences of life without parole. It was the
Legislature, not the prosecutors, that mandated life without parole as a punishment for
specific crimes. To the extent that prosecutors had some effect on whether these defendants
were subject to mandatory life without parole by exercising discretion in selecting the
charges that were filed, Miller only concerns the imposition of the mandatory sentence
14 itself and not the conviction underlying the sentence. See Montgomery, 577 US at 212
(“Extending parole eligibility to juvenile offenders does not impose an onerous burden on
the States, nor does it disturb the finality of state convictions.”). Thus, although
prosecutors may have relied to some extent on the old rule, any such reliance is undermined
by the fact that they never had to argue for life-without-parole sentences and the
convictions that they worked to obtain remain undisturbed.
Instead, the focus should more appropriately be on the class of defendants who
received mandatory life-without-parole sentences for homicide offenses committed when
they were juveniles, but whose cases were already finished on direct review when Miller
was decided. Reliance on pre-Miller caselaw is obviously detrimental to that group of
defendants who would have received relief under Miller but for a quirk in timing. 5
Accordingly, the Carp opinion erred in its application of the second factor.
In examining the third factor, Carp correctly noted that there is a burden on the
administration of justice to the extent that resentencing hearings require precious judicial
resources. See Carp, 496 Mich at 504. We also recognize that such hearings can of course
be extremely difficult for those affected by the underlying crimes. Although the Carp
opinion did not err by determining that there was a burden on the administration of justice,
this factor is outweighed by the consideration of the other two factors. More importantly,
this burden is further outweighed by the conclusion that Parks is a substantive rule.
5 To the extent that the Carp opinion held that this is not strictly “reliance” because these defendants did not rely on Miller before their sentences were validly imposed, that reasoning would again apply to the individual prosecutors who also could not be said to have relied on Miller, both because Miller had not been decided yet and because the sentences were mandated by the Legislature.
15 We thus hold that Carp erred in its analysis of the Linkletter-Hampton factors.
However, that is only the first step of the stare decisis inquiry. See Robinson v Detroit,
462 Mich 439, 465; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). “[C]ourts should [also] review whether the
decision defies practical workability, whether reliance interests would work an undue
hardship were the decision to be overruled, and whether changes in the law or facts no
longer justify the decision.” City of Coldwater v Consumers Energy Co, 500 Mich 158,
173; 895 NW2d 154 (2017). Although the Carp holding does not defy practical
workability, there has been no significant reliance on Carp, given that it was reversed on
federal grounds in relatively short order, and Montgomery itself was a meaningful change
in the law that entirely undermined Carp’s substantive holding. Accordingly, we find that
our stare decisis doctrine does not prevent us from overruling that portion of Carp that
addressed the state retroactivity test.
In sum, because our decision to overrule Carp already involved a substantive
discussion of the Linkletter-Hampton factors, we now incorporate that analysis in holding
that Parks applies retroactively. The first factor, concerning the purpose of the new rule,
favors retroactive application of Parks because, like Miller, Parks declared mandatory life-
without-parole sentences unconstitutional for an entire class. The second factor,
concerning reliance, also favors retroactive application because reliance on pre-Parks
caselaw is detrimental to that group of defendants who received mandatory life-without-
parole sentences for crimes committed when they were 18 years old, but whose cases were
already finished on direct review when Parks was decided. The third factor, concerning
the administration of justice, does not favor retroactive application, given the use of judicial
resources and the impact of resentencing hearings on those affected by the underlying
16 crimes. However, on balance, the application of the Linkletter-Hampton factors reaffirms
our conclusion that Parks is entitled to retroactive application as a substantive rule under
Gay, 407 Mich at 706.
IV. CONCLUSION
We hold that the Parks holding is retroactive under a state retroactivity analysis.
Under Gay, our primary focus concerns whether a past holding is procedural or substantive.
We find that the Montgomery analysis, holding that Miller was a substantive rule, is
persuasive, and that Parks also announced a substantive rule. In addressing the Linkletter-
Hampton factors to confirm that retroactive application is appropriate, we overrule Carp’s
state retroactivity analysis, in particular the opinion’s mistaken holding that the first factor
focuses on whether a rule is concerned with a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Because our
application of the Linkletter-Hampton factors confirms that retroactive application is
warranted, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating defendant’s sentence
of mandatory life without the possibility of parole and remanding for further proceedings
consistent with MCL 769.25a and this opinion.
Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden
THOMAS, J., did not participate because of her prior involvement in this case.