shall conduct hearing in Michigan

2025At the hearing, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in Miller v Alabama, 576 US_____; 183 L Ed 2d 407 ; 132 S Ct 2455 (2012), and may consider any other criteria relevant to its decision, including the individual’s record while incarcerated. (7) At the hearing under subsection (6), the court shall specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court’s reasons supporting the sentence imposed.

2023MCL 769.25(6) provides that “[i]f the prosecuting attorney files a motion . . . [seeking LWOP], the court shall conduct a hearing on the motion as part of the sentencing process[,] [and] [a]t the hearing, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in Miller . . . .” One of the Miller factors for a court to consider is “the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of [the minor’s] participation in the conduct[.]” Miller, 567 US at 477 .

2017At the hearing, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in Miller v Alabama, 576 US ___ ; 183 L Ed 2d 407 ; 132 S Ct 2455 (2012), and may consider any other criteria relevant to its decision, including the individual’s record while incarcerated. 2 These factors have been known as the “Miller factors.” Hyatt, 316 Mich App at ___ ; slip p at 4 n 2. -7- (7) At the hearing under subsection (6), the court shall specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court’s reasons supporting the sentence imposed.

2017At the hearing, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in Miller v Alabama, 576 US ___ ; 183 L Ed 2d 407 ; 132 S Ct 2455 (2012), and may consider any other criteria relevant to its decision, including the individual’s record while incarcerated. 2 These factors have been known as the “Miller factors.” Hyatt, 316 Mich App at ___ ; slip p at 4 n 2. -7- (7) At the hearing under subsection (6), the court shall specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court’s reasons supporting the sentence imposed.

2019The Legislature intended MCL 28.728c(14) as a “ ‘consent exception’ for certain offenders who can prove that they engaged in a consensual sexual act.” People v Temelkoski (On Remand), 307 Mich App 241, 255 ; 859 NW2d 743 (2014), reversed on other grounds 501 Mich 960 (2018); Costner, 309 Mich App at 238-239 (GLEICHER, J., dissenting) (“MCL 28.728c -3- was enacted to allow ‘Romeo and Juliet’ offenders to petition for reprieve from the rigors of the sex-offender registry.”).

2019The Legislature intended MCL 28.728c(14) as a “ ‘consent exception’ for certain offenders who can prove that they engaged in a consensual sexual act.” People v Temelkoski (On Remand), 307 Mich App 241, 255 ; 859 NW2d 743 (2014), reversed on other grounds 501 Mich 960 (2018); Costner, 309 Mich App at 238-239 (GLEICHER, J., dissenting) (“MCL 28.728c -3- was enacted to allow ‘Romeo and Juliet’ offenders to petition for reprieve from the rigors of the sex-offender registry.”).

2015Williams, 245 Mich App at 432 . -3- In arguing that the court erred in waiving jurisdiction to the circuit court of general criminal jurisdiction, respondent addresses four of the six factors articulated in MCL 712A.4, which provides: (4) Upon a showing of probable cause under [MCL 712A.4(3)] [describing first phase of waiver hearing], the court shall conduct a hearing to determine if the best interests of the juvenile and the public would be served by granting a waiver of jurisdiction to the court of general criminal jurisdiction.