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.
31 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 8 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. Milbournred2 sentences2021In Benton, 294 Mich App at 205-205, this Court 1 The reasonableness of a sentence is determined by evaluating whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality, “ ‘which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” Steanhouse, 500 Mich at 474, quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 . -6- determined that the severity of the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed was not disproportionate to the gravity of an adult committing a sexual crime against a child less than 13 years old, 2018Hence, appellate review of the sentence imposed is for abuse of discretion, to determine whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality, ‘which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” Id., citing People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636, 651-652 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). | 5 | 14 |
People v. Cervantesgreen2 sentences1997People v Cervantes, 448 Mich 620, 622, 630 ; 532 NW2d 831 (1995) . 1997People v Cervantes, 448 Mich 620, 622, 630 ; 532 NW2d 831 (1995) . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tannergreen2 sentences2021People v Tanner, 387 Mich 683, 690 ; 199 NW2d 202 (1972) (“Convinced as we are, that a sentence with too short an interval between minimum and maximum is not indeterminate, -9- we hold that any sentence which provides for a minimum exceeding two-thirds of the maximum is improper as failing to comply with the indeterminant sentence act”); MCL 769.34(2)(b). 2021People v Tanner, 387 Mich 683, 690 ; 199 NW2d 202 (1972) (“Convinced as we are, that a sentence with too short an interval between minimum and maximum is not indeterminate, -9- we hold that any sentence which provides for a minimum exceeding two-thirds of the maximum is improper as failing to comply with the indeterminant sentence act”); MCL 769.34(2)(b). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gatewood
green
2 sentences1997Consequently, it has been interpreted to intend that “review of an habitual offender sentence is limited to considering whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality set forth in [Milbourn]." People v Gatewood (On Remand), 216 Mich App 559, 560 ; 550 NW2d 265 (1996). 1997Consequently, it has been interpreted to intend that “review of an habitual offender sentence is limited to considering whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality set forth in [Milbourn]." People v Gatewood (On Remand), 216 Mich App 559, 560 ; 550 NW2d 265 (1996). | 8 | 1996–2018 |
People v. Hyatt
green
2 sentences2018Hence, appellate review of the sentence imposed is for abuse of discretion, to determine whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality, ‘which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” Id., citing People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636, 651-652 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 2018Hence, appellate review of the sentence imposed is for abuse of discretion, to determine whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality, ‘which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” Id., citing People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636, 651-652 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). | 8 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Steanhouse
green
2 sentences2026An abuse of discretion occurs when the sentence violates the principle of proportionality as set forth in Milbourn.1 People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 , 459-460; 902 NW2d 327 (2017). 2026An abuse of discretion occurs when the sentence violates the principle of proportionality as stated in Milbourn.5 People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 , 459-460; 902 NW2d 237 (2017). | 3 | 2016–2026 |
People of Michigan v. Trevin Michael Teike
green
2 sentences2026Id. “[T]he principle of proportionality simply requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” Id. at 537-538 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026Id. “[T]he principle of proportionality simply requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” Id. at 537-538 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Skinner
green
2 sentences2021Skinner, 502 Mich at 131-132 . 2020Skinner, 502 Mich at 131-132 . | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Lentz v. Mumy Well Service
green
1 sentence2025People v Dixon-Bey, 340 Mich 1 Maher testified that she became aware of the man in her apartment at approximately 6:00 a.m. that morning. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People of Michigan v. Mohammad Masroor
green
1 sentence2016Thus, we conclude that as a matter of law, a defendant receiving a sentence that is an upward departure cannot show prejudice and therefore cannot establish plain error. [Id. at 395 n 31.] In People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 44-48 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015), lv gtd 499 Mich 934 (2016), this Court clarified that a trial court abuses its discretion in imposing a sentence if the sentence violates the principle of proportionality test as set out in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Parrish
green
2 sentences2001People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990); People v Parrish, 216 Mich App 178, 184 ; 549 NW2d 32 (1996). 2001People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990); People v Parrish, 216 Mich App 178, 184 ; 549 NW2d 32 (1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.