section 16 proportionality requirement in Michigan

2014See id. at 171-172; see also People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 31 ; 485 NW2d 866 (1992).37 As set forth in Lorentzen and Bullock, the state test for proportionality assesses (1) the severity of the sentence imposed 37 The inclusion of proportionality review under Article 1, § 16 has been the subject of significant disagreement.

2014See id. at 171-172; see also People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 31 ; 485 NW2d 866 (1992).37 As set forth in Lorentzen and Bullock, the state test for proportionality assesses (1) the severity of the sentence imposed 37 The inclusion of proportionality review under Article 1, § 16 has been the subject of significant disagreement.

2026These factors include: 9 Overruled in part by People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 , 255 n 9; 987 NW2d 161 (2022), and People v Taylor, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket Nos. 166428 and 166654); slip op at 36. 10 In Taylor, the Supreme Court stated, “[w]e do not disturb, at this time, Hall’s holding that Const 1963, art 1, § 16 permits a mandatory punishment of LWOP for defendants convicted of first-degree murder, so long as the defendant was at least 21 years of age at the time of the offense.” Taylor, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 36. -17- (1) the severity of the sentence relative to the gravi

2026These factors include: 9 Overruled in part by People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 , 255 n 9; 987 NW2d 161 (2022), and People v Taylor, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket Nos. 166428 and 166654); slip op at 36. 10 In Taylor, the Supreme Court stated, “[w]e do not disturb, at this time, Hall’s holding that Const 1963, art 1, § 16 permits a mandatory punishment of LWOP for defendants convicted of first-degree murder, so long as the defendant was at least 21 years of age at the time of the offense.” Taylor, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 36. -17- (1) the severity of the sentence relative to the gravi

1997The combined statutory language of §§ 16 and 17, like the combined statutory language of the probation statute, requires consideration of payment factors but does not require an express determination on the record regarding the defendant’s ability to pay, absent a timely objection, at the time restitution is imposed. 5 The victims of the scheme were Great Day Foods, Sy’s Market, and Old Kent Bank. 6 In his petition for a court-appointed attorney for the bench trial, defendant indicated that he had an obligation of $100 a week in child support. 7 The letters included two letters from his two ex