People v. David Lyons

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. David Lyons

879 N.W.2d 871, 499 Mich. 958, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1148

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 2016

Docket153125; Court of Appeals 319252

StatusPublished

This text of 879 N.W.2d 871 (People v. David Lyons) 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 v. David Lyons, 879 N.W.2d 871, 499 Mich. 958, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1148 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is granted. The motion to supplement the application for leave to appeal is denied. The application for leave to appeal the October 22,2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand for resentencing is granted, in part, and we remand this case to the Macomb Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VT of our opinion. If the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resen- *959 tence the defendant. The motion for peremptory reversal, the motions to remand, and the motion for reissuance of the judgment are denied. We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is granted. The motion to supplement the application for leave to appeal is denied. The application for leave to appeal the October 22,2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand for resentencing is granted, in part, and we remand this case to the Macomb Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VT of our opinion. If the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resen- *959 tence the defendant. The motion for peremptory reversal, the motions to remand, and the motion for reissuance of the judgment are denied. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

879 N.W.2d 871, 499 Mich. 958, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-david-lyons-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack