Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
189 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 53 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Steanhousegreen2 sentences2021In People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds 500 Mich 453 (2017), this Court indicated: Factors previously considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for reha 2021In People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds 500 Mich 453 (2017), this Court indicated: Factors previously considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for reha | 23 | 56 |
People v. Milbournred2 sentences2025Perhaps that is why, in the only recent challenge under Parks to a term of years sentence, the Court did not employ the Bullock/Lorentzen test, but instead held that to be constitutional, and consistent with the proportionality factors articulated in Snow and People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 659-661 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), the attributes of youth of an offender under the age of 19 must be considered in rendering the individualized sentence. 2025Perhaps that is why, in the only recent challenge under Parks to a term of years sentence, the Court did not employ the Bullock/Lorentzen test, but instead held that to be constitutional, and consistent with the proportionality factors articulated in Snow and People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 659-661 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), the attributes of youth of an offender under the age of 19 must be considered in rendering the individualized sentence. | 7 | 79 |
People v. Bullockgreen2 sentences2022Justice BERNSTEIN, concurring, agreed with the majority’s analysis of the proportionality test outlined in People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15 (1992), and with the majority’s conclusion that the imposition of mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on 18- year-old offenders violates this proportionality principle, but he wrote separately to highlight additional reasons that support this position. 2022Justice BERNSTEIN, concurring, agreed with the majority’s analysis of the proportionality test outlined in People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15 (1992), and with the majority’s conclusion that the imposition of mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on 18- year-old offenders violates this proportionality principle, but he wrote separately to highlight additional reasons that support this position. | 7 | 7 |
People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Beygreen2 sentences2025When applying the proportionality standard, several factors may be considered, including: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Lawhorn, 320 Mich App 194 , 207; 907 NW2d 832 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] A trial court’s explanation on the record must include “w 2025Other factors that may be considered by a trial court under the proportionality standard include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [Lampe, 327 Mich App at 126 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] The trial court also “must justify the sentence imposed in o | 6 | 29 |
People v. Houstongreen2 sentences2018Even where some departure appears to be appropriate, the extent of the departure (rather than the fact of the departure itself) may embody a violation of the principle of proportionality. [People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 45-46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (Steanhouse I), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds in Steanhouse II, 500 Mich 453 (2017), quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 659-660 .] In addition, [f]actors previously considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the offense, People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321 ; 532 NW2 2018Even where some departure appears to be appropriate, the extent of the departure (rather than the fact of the departure itself) may embody a violation of the principle of proportionality. [People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 45-46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (Steanhouse I), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds in Steanhouse II, 500 Mich 453 (2017), quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 659-660 .] In addition, [f]actors previously considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the offense, People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321 ; 532 NW2 | 4 | 12 |
People v. Lorentzengreen2 sentences1992See Weems v United States, 217 US 349 ; 30 S Ct 544 ; 54 L Ed 793 (1910), Rummel v Estelle, 445 US 263 ; 100 S Ct 1133 ; 63 L Ed 2d 382 (1980), Hutto v Davis, 454 US 370 ; 102 S Ct 703 ; 70 L Ed 2d 556 (1982), and Solem v Helm, supra. For Michigan authority recognizing a proportionality principle, see People v Lorentzen, supra, and People v Mire, 173 Mich 357 ; 138 NW 1066 (1912). 1986Citations omitted.] The United States Supreme Court recently set out the following factors for evaluating whether a sentence is unconstitutionally excessive and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment: 6 _ In sum, a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdiction | 4 | 7 |
Solem v. Helmred2 sentences2022Rather than rebut each of her assertions, I leave it to the reader to determine whether this footnote merits the uncharacteristic ad hominem attack expressed by the Chief Justice. 25 See Graham, 560 US at 59 (“The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.”); Harmelin v Michigan, 501 US 957, 997, 1001 ; 111 S Ct 2680 ; 115 L Ed 2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concluding that “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause encompasses a narrow proportionality principle” that “forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly dispropor 2022Rather than rebut each of her assertions, I leave it to the reader to determine whether this footnote merits the uncharacteristic ad hominem attack expressed by the Chief Justice. 25 See Graham, 560 US at 59 (“The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.”); Harmelin v Michigan, 501 US 957, 997, 1001 ; 111 S Ct 2680 ; 115 L Ed 2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concluding that “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause encompasses a narrow proportionality principle” that “forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly dispropor | 4 | 5 |
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences2022Rather than rebut each of her assertions, I leave it to the reader to determine whether this footnote merits the uncharacteristic ad hominem attack expressed by the Chief Justice. 25 See Graham, 560 US at 59 (“The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.”); Harmelin v Michigan, 501 US 957, 997, 1001 ; 111 S Ct 2680 ; 115 L Ed 2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concluding that “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause encompasses a narrow proportionality principle” that “forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly dispropor 2022Rather than rebut each of her assertions, I leave it to the reader to determine whether this footnote merits the uncharacteristic ad hominem attack expressed by the Chief Justice. 25 See Graham, 560 US at 59 (“The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.”); Harmelin v Michigan, 501 US 957, 997, 1001 ; 111 S Ct 2680 ; 115 L Ed 2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concluding that “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause encompasses a narrow proportionality principle” that “forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly dispropor | 3 | 4 |
Graham v. Floridagreen2 sentences2022Rather than rebut each of her assertions, I leave it to the reader to determine whether this footnote merits the uncharacteristic ad hominem attack expressed by the Chief Justice. 25 See Graham, 560 US at 59 (“The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.”); Harmelin v Michigan, 501 US 957, 997, 1001 ; 111 S Ct 2680 ; 115 L Ed 2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concluding that “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause encompasses a narrow proportionality principle” that “forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly dispropor 2022Rather than rebut each of her assertions, I leave it to the reader to determine whether this footnote merits the uncharacteristic ad hominem attack expressed by the Chief Justice. 25 See Graham, 560 US at 59 (“The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment.”); Harmelin v Michigan, 501 US 957, 997, 1001 ; 111 S Ct 2680 ; 115 L Ed 2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concluding that “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause encompasses a narrow proportionality principle” that “forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly dispropor | 3 | 3 |
People v. Norfleetgreen2 sentences2025But this Court must analyze a proportionality challenge by focusing only on “the individual [prison] term imposed and not on the cumulative effect of multiple sentences.” People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649, 663 ; 897 NW2d 195 (2016). 2025But this Court must analyze a proportionality challenge by focusing only on “the individual [prison] term imposed and not on the cumulative effect of multiple sentences.” People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649, 663 ; 897 NW2d 195 (2016). | 1 | 12 |
People v. Lockridgegreen2 sentences2018Lockridge, 498 Mich at 365 , held that sentences that depart from the minimum sentence range “are to be reviewed by appellate courts for reasonableness.” Recently, the Supreme Court “reaffirm[ed]” that, when reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, courts should apply “the proportionality principle adopted in [People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990)] . . . .” People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 , 473; 902 NW2d 327 (2017). 2018Lockridge, 498 Mich at 365 , held that sentences that depart from the minimum sentence range “are to be reviewed by appellate courts for reasonableness.” Recently, the Supreme Court “reaffirm[ed]” that, when reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, courts should apply “the proportionality principle adopted in [People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990)] . . . .” People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 , 473; 902 NW2d 327 (2017). | 1 | 10 |
People v. Piotrowskigreen2 sentences2024See People v Piotrowski, 211 Mich App 527, 532-533 ; 536 NW2d 293 (1995) (holding that the age of the defendant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offense, did not constitute an unusual circumstance). 2024See People v Piotrowski, 211 Mich App 527, 532-533 ; 536 NW2d 293 (1995) (holding that the age of the defendant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offense, did not constitute an unusual circumstance). | 1 | 1 |
Isabella County Department of Social Services v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2024See MRE 301 (“In a civil case, unless a statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption.”); Isabella Co Dep’t of Social Servs, 210 Mich App at 616 (“an unrebutted presumption can form the basis for . . . summary disposition”). -18- In this instance, plaintiff failed to carry its burden of production in those regards, at least with regard to the instant proportionality inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kevorkiangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lawrencegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Milesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Michael Begingreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Poyntergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barber v. Pagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Weems v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Milbournred2 sentences2025Perhaps that is why, in the only recent challenge under Parks to a term of years sentence, the Court did not employ the Bullock/Lorentzen test, but instead held that to be constitutional, and consistent with the proportionality factors articulated in Snow and People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 659-661 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), the attributes of youth of an offender under the age of 19 must be considered in rendering the individualized sentence. 2025Perhaps that is why, in the only recent challenge under Parks to a term of years sentence, the Court did not employ the Bullock/Lorentzen test, but instead held that to be constitutional, and consistent with the proportionality factors articulated in Snow and People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 659-661 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), the attributes of youth of an offender under the age of 19 must be considered in rendering the individualized sentence. | 1 | 79 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2024Nonetheless, the difference between the sentence imposed based on a departure and the recommended minimum sentence range under the guidelines is relevant to the proportionality analysis. [People v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 298 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008).] In this case, defendant’s sentencing guidelines recommendation for Count 1 was 19 to 38 months in prison; however, the trial court sentenced defendant to 66 to 120 months, reasoning as follows: I don’t blame [Whitfield] for being upset every time he came in here. 2024Nonetheless, the difference between the sentence imposed based on a departure and the recommended minimum sentence range under the guidelines is relevant to the proportionality analysis. [People v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 298 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008).] In this case, defendant’s sentencing guidelines recommendation for Count 1 was 19 to 38 months in prison; however, the trial court sentenced defendant to 66 to 120 months, reasoning as follows: I don’t blame [Whitfield] for being upset every time he came in here. | 13 | 2017–2024 |
People v. Babcock
green
2 sentences2019Since we need not reconstruct the house, we reaffirm the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed in [People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003)] and [People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008)]. [Steanhouse, 500 Mich at 473.]. 2019Since we need not reconstruct the house, we reaffirm the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed in [People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003)] and [People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008)]. [Steanhouse, 500 Mich at 473.]. | 6 | 2016–2019 |
People v. Granderson
green
2 sentences2023“Where a defendant’s actions are so egregious that standard guidelines scoring methods simply fail to reflect their severity, an upward departure from the guidelines range may be warranted.” People v Granderson, 212 Mich App 673, 680 ; 538 NW2d 471 (1995).10 In People v Lampe, 327 Mich App 104 , 126; 933 NW2d 314 (2019), this Court indicated that the factors that may be considered by a trial court under the proportionality test include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not 2023“Where a defendant’s actions are so egregious that standard guidelines scoring methods simply fail to reflect their severity, an upward departure from the guidelines range may be warranted.” People v Granderson, 212 Mich App 673, 680 ; 538 NW2d 471 (1995).10 In People v Lampe, 327 Mich App 104 , 126; 933 NW2d 314 (2019), this Court indicated that the factors that may be considered by a trial court under the proportionality test include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not | 4 | 2022–2023 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2022In sum, after considering all four factors of the proportionality test from Lorentzen and Bullock, we conclude that our Constitution prohibits imposing sentences of mandatory life without parole for 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder, given that their neurological characteristics are identical to those of juveniles, as articulated in Miller, 567 US at 471-479 . 2022In sum, after considering all four factors of the proportionality test from Lorentzen and Bullock, we conclude that our Constitution prohibits imposing sentences of mandatory life without parole for 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder, given that their neurological characteristics are identical to those of juveniles, as articulated in Miller, 567 US at 471-479 . | 4 | 2013–2022 |
People of Michigan v. Alexander Jeremy Steanhouse
green
2 sentences2020Additional factors considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard include: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Steanhouse (On Remand), 322 Mich App 233, 238-239 ; 911 NW2d 253 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Departure sentences may be imposed 2020Additional factors considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard include: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Steanhouse (On Remand), 322 Mich App 233, 238-239 ; 911 NW2d 253 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Departure sentences may be imposed | 4 | 2018–2020 |
People v. Coles
green
2 sentences2024It is accurate that, in adopting the Milbourn standard, our Supreme Court stated: [I]t is our hope and belief that the proportionality test will have the additional, incidental effect of fostering “sentencing equity,” i.e., that it will provide better protection against unjustified sentence disparity between similarly situated -4- offenders, a phenomenon we condemned in [People v Coles, 417 Mich 523 ; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), overruled in part by Milbourn, 435 Mich at 635-636 ,] and which has been justly held up to criticism of the most vehement sort. [Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 (footnotes omitted) 2024It is accurate that, in adopting the Milbourn standard, our Supreme Court stated: [I]t is our hope and belief that the proportionality test will have the additional, incidental effect of fostering “sentencing equity,” i.e., that it will provide better protection against unjustified sentence disparity between similarly situated -4- offenders, a phenomenon we condemned in [People v Coles, 417 Mich 523 ; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), overruled in part by Milbourn, 435 Mich at 635-636 ,] and which has been justly held up to criticism of the most vehement sort. [Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 (footnotes omitted) | 3 | 1991–2024 |
People v. Feezel
green
2 sentences2022Our role is no different than that of the United States Supreme Court and its own historical approach to Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. 8 Based on the submissions from defense counsel and the neuropsychologist, psychologist, and criminal-justice scholar amici, there is a clear consensus that late adolescence—which includes the age of 18—is a key stage of development characterized 7 See People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 207-212 ; 783 NW2d 67 (2010) (holding that 11- carboxy-THC is not a controlled substance, in part, because it is a metabolite that is created when a person’s body breaks down THC) 2022Our role is no different than that of the United States Supreme Court and its own historical approach to Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. 8 Based on the submissions from defense counsel and the neuropsychologist, psychologist, and criminal-justice scholar amici, there is a clear consensus that late adolescence—which includes the age of 18—is a key stage of development characterized 7 See People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 207-212 ; 783 NW2d 67 (2010) (holding that 11- carboxy-THC is not a controlled substance, in part, because it is a metabolite that is created when a person’s body breaks down THC) | 3 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Bowling
green
2 sentences2018Defendant merely argues on appeal that his sentence as a fourth habitual offender is disproportionate because it does not meet the proportionality standard set forth in Milbourn. “[A]n appellant may not simply announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Bowling, 299 Mich App at 559-560 . 2018Defendant merely argues on appeal that his sentence as a fourth habitual offender is disproportionate because it does not meet the proportionality standard set forth in Milbourn. “[A]n appellant may not simply announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Bowling, 299 Mich App at 559-560 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Schrauben
green
2 sentences2018But defendant was sentenced within his minimum sentence range, and this Court has concluded that Lockridge did not alter or diminish MCL 769.34(10), which provides, in pertinent part, “If a minimum sentence is within the appropriate guidelines sentence range, the court of appeals shall affirm that sentence and shall not remand for resentencing absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence.” [People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 , 196 n 1; 886 NW2d 173 (2016).] “When a trial court does not depart from the recom 2018But defendant was sentenced within his minimum sentence range, and this Court has concluded that Lockridge did not alter or diminish MCL 769.34(10), which provides, in pertinent part, “If a minimum sentence is within the appropriate guidelines sentence range, the court of appeals shall affirm that sentence and shall not remand for resentencing absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence.” [People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 , 196 n 1; 886 NW2d 173 (2016).] “When a trial court does not depart from the recom | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Gall v. United States
green
2 sentences2017Since we need not reconstruct the house, we reaffirm the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed in [ People v. Babcock , 469 Mich. 247 , 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003) ] and [ People v. Smith , 482 Mich. 292 , 754 N.W.2d 284 (2008) ]. [ Steanhouse 500 Mich. at 473 , 902 N.W.2d 327 .] However, to the extent that dicta from our Supreme Court's prior opinions were "inconsistent with the United States Supreme *476 Court's prohibition on presumptions of unreasonableness for out-of-guidelines *522 sentences," it "disavow[ed] those dicta." Id . at 474, 902 N.W.2d 327 , citing Gall v. Uni 2017Since we need not reconstruct the house, we reaffirm the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed in [ People v. Babcock , 469 Mich. 247 , 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003) ] and [ People v. Smith , 482 Mich. 292 , 754 N.W.2d 284 (2008) ]. [ Steanhouse 500 Mich. at 473 , 902 N.W.2d 327 .] However, to the extent that dicta from our Supreme Court's prior opinions were "inconsistent with the United States Supreme *476 Court's prohibition on presumptions of unreasonableness for out-of-guidelines *522 sentences," it "disavow[ed] those dicta." Id . at 474, 902 N.W.2d 327 , citing Gall v. Uni | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Coulter
green
2 sentences2026Under the proportionality standard, factors that may be considered by the trial court include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Lampe, 327 Mich App 104 , 126; 933 NW2d 314 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “A sentencing court is allowed 2026Under the proportionality standard, factors that may be considered by the trial court include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Lampe, 327 Mich App 104 , 126; 933 NW2d 314 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “A sentencing court is allowed | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Conley
green
2 sentences2024“Factors that may be considered by a trial court under the proportionality standard include, but are not limited to: -20- ‘(1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation.’ ” [Lampe, 327 Mich App at 126, quoting People v Walden, 319 Mich App 344 , 352-353; 901 NW2d 142 (2017) (citation omitted).] “A 2024“Factors that may be considered by a trial court under the proportionality standard include, but are not limited to: -20- ‘(1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation.’ ” [Lampe, 327 Mich App at 126, quoting People v Walden, 319 Mich App 344 , 352-353; 901 NW2d 142 (2017) (citation omitted).] “A | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Walters v. Nadell
green
1 sentence2024To reiterate: “Trial courts are not the research assistants of the litigants; the parties have a duty to fully present their legal arguments to the court for its resolution of their dispute.” Walters, 481 Mich at 388 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Hendrick
green
2 sentences2024People v Hendrick, 472 Mich 555, 557 ; 697 NW2d 511 (2005). 2024People v Hendrick, 472 Mich 555, 557 ; 697 NW2d 511 (2005). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Weathington
neutral
2 sentences2024It is accurate that, in adopting the Milbourn standard, our Supreme Court stated: [I]t is our hope and belief that the proportionality test will have the additional, incidental effect of fostering “sentencing equity,” i.e., that it will provide better protection against unjustified sentence disparity between similarly situated -4- offenders, a phenomenon we condemned in [People v Coles, 417 Mich 523 ; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), overruled in part by Milbourn, 435 Mich at 635-636 ,] and which has been justly held up to criticism of the most vehement sort. [Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 (footnotes omitted) 2024It is accurate that, in adopting the Milbourn standard, our Supreme Court stated: [I]t is our hope and belief that the proportionality test will have the additional, incidental effect of fostering “sentencing equity,” i.e., that it will provide better protection against unjustified sentence disparity between similarly situated -4- offenders, a phenomenon we condemned in [People v Coles, 417 Mich 523 ; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), overruled in part by Milbourn, 435 Mich at 635-636 ,] and which has been justly held up to criticism of the most vehement sort. [Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 (footnotes omitted) | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Watroba
green
2 sentences2023Subchapter 6.500 of the Michigan Court Rules provides “the exclusive means to challenge a conviction in Michigan once a defendant has exhausted the normal appellate process.” People v Watroba, 193 Mich App 124, 126 ; 483 NW2d 441 (1992). 2023Subchapter 6.500 of the Michigan Court Rules provides “the exclusive means to challenge a conviction in Michigan once a defendant has exhausted the normal appellate process.” People v Watroba, 193 Mich App 124, 126 ; 483 NW2d 441 (1992). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Kanaan
green
2 sentences2023People v Bulls, 262 Mich App 618, 627 ; 687 NW2d 159 (2004). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). -7- may be considered by a trial court under the proportionality standard include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s e 2023People v Bulls, 262 Mich App 618, 627 ; 687 NW2d 159 (2004). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). -7- may be considered by a trial court under the proportionality standard include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s e | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Bulls green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Babcock green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Armisted green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Bolt v. City of Lansing green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Powell green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In re Anonymous Judge Before the Judicial Tenure Comm'n neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Wesley green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Hyatt green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Marshall Warner neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Lemons green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Launsburry green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| City Of Detroit v. State Of Michigan green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Larco green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Potts green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Hutto v. Davis green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Rummel v. Estelle green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Mire green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Covington neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Scott v. Illinois green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Tanner green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.