cruel and unusual punishment challenge in Michigan

2026Our Supreme Court has adopted a four-part test to determine whether a sentence is cruel or unusual: (1) the severity of the sentence imposed compared to the gravity of the offense, (2) the penalty imposed for the offense compared to penalties on other offenders in Michigan, (3) the penalty imposed for the offense in Michigan compared to the penalty imposed for the same offense in other states, and (4) whether the penalty imposed advances the penological goal of rehabilitation. [People v Stovall, 510 Mich 301 , 314; 987 NW2d 85 (2022).] Although one consideration may weigh against the sentence

2026Our Supreme Court has adopted a four-part test to determine whether a sentence is cruel or unusual: (1) the severity of the sentence imposed compared to the gravity of the offense, (2) the penalty imposed for the offense compared to penalties on other offenders in Michigan, (3) the penalty imposed for the offense in Michigan compared to the penalty imposed for the same offense in other states, and (4) whether the penalty imposed advances the penological goal of rehabilitation. [People v Stovall, 510 Mich 301 , 314; 987 NW2d 85 (2022).] Although one consideration may weigh against the sentence

2024Other policies, such as deterrence of others, deterrence of the offender, or punishment of the offender, may suffice to deflect a cruel and unusual punishment challenge. [People v Fernandez, 427 Mich 321, 339 ; 398 NW2d 311 (1986).] Our Supreme Court has found “a trial court has been given broad discretion, within limits fixed by law, to tailor a sentence to the circumstances of each case and each offender in an effort to balance society’s need for protection against its interest in rehabilitation of the offender.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 661 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2024Other policies, such as deterrence of others, deterrence of the offender, or punishment of the offender, may suffice to deflect a cruel and unusual punishment challenge. [People v Fernandez, 427 Mich 321, 339 ; 398 NW2d 311 (1986).] Our Supreme Court has found “a trial court has been given broad discretion, within limits fixed by law, to tailor a sentence to the circumstances of each case and each offender in an effort to balance society’s need for protection against its interest in rehabilitation of the offender.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 661 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2020Ewing v California, 538 US 11, 30-31 ; 123 S Ct 1179 ; 155 L Ed 2d 108 (2003).

2020Ewing v California, 538 US 11, 30-31 ; 123 S Ct 1179 ; 155 L Ed 2d 108 (2003).

2018On the other hand, because it is unpreserved, this Court reviews defendant’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.5 People v Costner, 309 Mich App 220, 232 ; 870 NW2d 582 (2015). 3 Defendant’s amended felony information listed three alternative predicate felonies for his felony-firearm conviction, one of which was assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 4 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 5 As explained in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999): To avoid forfeiture under the plain error r

2018On the other hand, because it is unpreserved, this Court reviews defendant’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.5 People v Costner, 309 Mich App 220, 232 ; 870 NW2d 582 (2015). 3 Defendant’s amended felony information listed three alternative predicate felonies for his felony-firearm conviction, one of which was assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 4 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 5 As explained in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999): To avoid forfeiture under the plain error r

2018On the other hand, because it is unpreserved, this Court reviews defendant’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.5 People v Costner, 309 Mich App 220, 232 ; 870 NW2d 582 (2015). 3 Defendant’s amended felony information listed three alternative predicate felonies for his felony-firearm conviction, one of which was assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 4 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 5 As explained in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999): To avoid forfeiture under the plain error r

2018On the other hand, because it is unpreserved, this Court reviews defendant’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.5 People v Costner, 309 Mich App 220, 232 ; 870 NW2d 582 (2015). 3 Defendant’s amended felony information listed three alternative predicate felonies for his felony-firearm conviction, one of which was assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 4 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 5 As explained in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999): To avoid forfeiture under the plain error r

2018On the other hand, because it is unpreserved, this Court reviews defendant’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.5 People v Costner, 309 Mich App 220, 232 ; 870 NW2d 582 (2015). 3 Defendant’s amended felony information listed three alternative predicate felonies for his felony-firearm conviction, one of which was assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 4 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 5 As explained in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999): To avoid forfeiture under the plain error r

2018On the other hand, because it is unpreserved, this Court reviews defendant’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.5 People v Costner, 309 Mich App 220, 232 ; 870 NW2d 582 (2015). 3 Defendant’s amended felony information listed three alternative predicate felonies for his felony-firearm conviction, one of which was assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 4 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 5 As explained in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999): To avoid forfeiture under the plain error r

1992The majority, however, was divided over the correctness of Solem v Helm, supra, and the assumption that proportionality is a component of the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

1992The majority, however, was divided over the correctness of Solem v Helm, supra , and the assumption that proportionality is a component of the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

1976As for the cruel and unusual punishment claim, under Peo pie v Lorentzen, 387 Mich 167; 194 NW2d 827 (1972), the punishment exacted is proportionate to the crime.

1976As for the cruel and unusual punishment claim, under Peo pie v Lorentzen, 387 Mich 167; 194 NW2d 827 (1972), the punishment exacted is proportionate to the crime.