Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 769 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a (2026)

Case as final on or before June 24, 2012; effect of state supreme court or United States supreme court decision; procedures; resentencing hearings; priority; credit for time served.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


769.25a Case as final on or before June 24, 2012; effect of state supreme court or United States supreme court decision; procedures; resentencing hearings; priority; credit for time served.

Sec. 25a.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), the procedures set forth in section 25 of this chapter do not apply to any case that is final for purposes of appeal on or before June 24, 2012. A case is final for purposes of appeal under this section if any of the following apply:

    (a) The time for filing an appeal in the state court of appeals has expired.

    (b) The application for leave to appeal is filed in the state supreme court and is denied or a timely filed motion for rehearing is denied.

    (c) If the state supreme court has granted leave to appeal, after the court renders its decision or after a timely filed motion for rehearing is denied.

    (2) If the state supreme court or the United States supreme court finds that the decision of the United States supreme court in Miller v Alabama, 576 US ___; 183 L Ed 2d 407; 132 S Ct 2455 (2012), applies retroactively to all defendants who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes, and that decision is final for appellate purposes, the determination of whether a sentence of imprisonment for a violation set forth in section 25(2) of this chapter shall be imprisonment for life without parole eligibility or a term of years as set forth in section 25(9) of this chapter shall be made by the sentencing judge or his or her successor as provided in this section. For purposes of this subsection, a decision of the state supreme court is final when either the United States supreme court denies a petition for certiorari challenging the decision or the time for filing that petition passes without a petition being filed.

    (3) If the state supreme court or the United States supreme court finds that the decision of the United States supreme court in Miller v Alabama, 576 US ___; 183 L Ed 2d 407; 132 S Ct 2455 (2012), applies retroactively to all defendants who were convicted of felony murder under section 316(1)(b) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.316, and who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes, and that the decision is final for appellate purposes, the determination of whether a sentence of imprisonment shall be imprisonment for life without parole eligibility or a term of years as set forth in section 25(9) of this chapter shall be made by the sentencing judge or his or her successor as provided in this section. For purposes of this subsection, a decision of the state supreme court is final when either the United States supreme court denies a petition for certiorari challenging the decision with regard to the retroactive application of Miller v Alabama, 576 US___; 183 L Ed 2d 407; 132 S Ct 2455 (2012), to defendants who committed felony murder and who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes, or when the time for filing that petition passes without a petition being filed.

    (4) The following procedures apply to cases described in subsections (2) and (3):

    (a) Within 30 days after the date the supreme court's decision becomes final, the prosecuting attorney shall provide a list of names to the chief circuit judge of that county of all defendants who are subject to the jurisdiction of that court and who must be resentenced under that decision.

    (b) Within 180 days after the date the supreme court's decision becomes final, the prosecuting attorney shall file motions for resentencing in all cases in which the prosecuting attorney will be requesting the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. A hearing on the motion shall be conducted as provided in section 25 of this chapter.

    (c) If the prosecuting attorney does not file a motion under subdivision (b), the court shall sentence the individual to a term of imprisonment for which the maximum term shall be 60 years and the minimum term shall be not less than 25 years or more than 40 years. Each victim shall be afforded the right under section 15 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.765, to appear before the court and make an oral impact statement at any resentencing of the defendant under this subdivision.

    (5) Resentencing hearings under subsection (4) shall be held in the following order of priority:

    (a) Cases involving defendants who have served 20 or more years of imprisonment shall be held first.

    (b) Cases in which the prosecuting attorney has filed a motion requesting a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole shall be held after cases described in subdivision (a) are held.

    (c) Cases other than those described in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall be held after the cases described in subdivisions (a) and (b) are held.

    (6) A defendant who is resentenced under subsection (4) shall be given credit for time already served, but shall not receive any good time credits, special good time credits, disciplinary credits, or any other credits that reduce the defendant's minimum or maximum sentence.

History: Add. 2014, Act 22, Imd. Eff. Mar. 4, 2014

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 215 cases (86 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker, 919 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker, 919 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 56× “*805 These appeals arise in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's proclamation that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing schemes are unconstitutional with respect to juvenile offenders and the Michigan Legislature's enactment of MCL 769.25a in an attempt to…”
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp, 496 Mich. 440 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 15× “25 and MCL 769.25a to the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
People of Michigan v. Gregory Wines, 916 N.W.2d 855 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “MILLER , MONTGOMERY , AND MCL 769.25a The Supreme Court decided Miller in 2012, but its opinion did not state whether that decision was to be applied retroactively.”
Hill v. Snyder, 308 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 11× “Michigan simultaneously enacted Section 769.25a, which anticipated a United States or Michigan Supreme Court decision making Miller retroactively applicable.”
People v. Skinner, 877 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “5 MCL 769.25a concerns retroactivity of MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes, 917 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “Anticipating the possibility of Miller 's retroactive application for closed cases, the Legislature also enacted MCL 769.25a, which would be triggered if our Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court were to hold that Miller applied retroactively.”
People of Michigan v. Ronald Williams, 928 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant was resentenced for his first-degree murder conviction under MCL 769.25a, which is part of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
People of Michigan v. Tyler Maurice Tate (Mich. 2022). · cites it 60× “25 and MCL 769.25a, which eliminated sentences of mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for all individuals who were convicted of specific crimes, including first-degree murder, for acts committed while they were juveniles.”
People of Michigan v. Demariol Dontaye Boykin (Mich. 2022). · cites it 60× “25 and MCL 769.25a, which eliminated sentences of mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for all individuals who were convicted of specific crimes, including first-degree murder, for acts committed while they were juveniles.”
People of Michigan v. Tyler Maurice Tate (Mich. 2022). · cites it 60× “25 and MCL 769.25a, which eliminated sentences of mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for all individuals who were convicted of specific crimes, including first-degree murder, for acts committed while they were juveniles.”
People of Michigan v. Demariol Dontaye Boykin (Mich. 2022). · cites it 60× “25 and MCL 769.25a, which eliminated sentences of mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for all individuals who were convicted of specific crimes, including first-degree murder, for acts committed while they were juveniles.”
People of Michigan v. Tyler Maurice Tate (Mich. 2022). · cites it 60× “25 and MCL 769.25a, which eliminated sentences of mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for all individuals who were convicted of specific crimes, including first-degree murder, for acts committed while they were juveniles.”
Show all 215 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(1) — 4 cases
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp, 496 Mich. 440 (Mich. 2014). “25 and MCL 769.25a to the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
People of Michigan v. Cortez Roland Davis (Mich. 2014).
People of Michigan v. Dakotah Wolfgang Eliason (Mich. 2014).
People of Michigan v. Rodney Damon Black (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(2) — 17 cases
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp, 496 Mich. 440 (Mich. 2014). “25 and MCL 769.25a to the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
People of Michigan v. Walter Miller (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Cortez Roland Davis (Mich. 2014).
People of Michigan v. Dakotah Wolfgang Eliason (Mich. 2014).
People of Michigan v. Tykeith L Turner (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(3) — 7 cases
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp, 496 Mich. 440 (Mich. 2014). “25 and MCL 769.25a to the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
People of Michigan v. Chad Edward-John Maleski (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Allan Gene-Reeder Martin Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Michael Jeffrey Johnson (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Willie Terrell Clemons (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(4) — 15 cases
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker, 919 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “*805 These appeals arise in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's proclamation that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing schemes are unconstitutional with respect to juvenile offenders and the Michigan Legislature's enactment of MCL 769.25a in an attempt to…”
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes, 917 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Anticipating the possibility of Miller 's retroactive application for closed cases, the Legislature also enacted MCL 769.25a, which would be triggered if our Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court were to hold that Miller applied retroactively.”
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Jennifer M Pruitt (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(4)(a) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes, 917 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Anticipating the possibility of Miller 's retroactive application for closed cases, the Legislature also enacted MCL 769.25a, which would be triggered if our Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court were to hold that Miller applied retroactively.”
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Tykeith L Turner (Mich. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(4)(b) — 40 cases
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker, 919 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “*805 These appeals arise in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's proclamation that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing schemes are unconstitutional with respect to juvenile offenders and the Michigan Legislature's enactment of MCL 769.25a in an attempt to…”
People of Michigan v. Gregory Wines, 916 N.W.2d 855 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MILLER , MONTGOMERY , AND MCL 769.25a The Supreme Court decided Miller in 2012, but its opinion did not state whether that decision was to be applied retroactively.”
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes, 917 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Anticipating the possibility of Miller 's retroactive application for closed cases, the Legislature also enacted MCL 769.25a, which would be triggered if our Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court were to hold that Miller applied retroactively.”
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Donald Willie Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(4)(c) — 58 cases
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker, 919 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “*805 These appeals arise in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's proclamation that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing schemes are unconstitutional with respect to juvenile offenders and the Michigan Legislature's enactment of MCL 769.25a in an attempt to…”
People of Michigan v. Gregory Wines, 916 N.W.2d 855 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MILLER , MONTGOMERY , AND MCL 769.25a The Supreme Court decided Miller in 2012, but its opinion did not state whether that decision was to be applied retroactively.”
People of Michigan v. Jessie Hayes, 917 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Anticipating the possibility of Miller 's retroactive application for closed cases, the Legislature also enacted MCL 769.25a, which would be triggered if our Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court were to hold that Miller applied retroactively.”
People of Michigan v. Zerious Meadows (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Cortez Roland Davis (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(6) — 12 cases
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker, 919 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “*805 These appeals arise in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's proclamation that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing schemes are unconstitutional with respect to juvenile offenders and the Michigan Legislature's enactment of MCL 769.25a in an attempt to…”
Hill v. Snyder, 308 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “Michigan simultaneously enacted Section 769.25a, which anticipated a United States or Michigan Supreme Court decision making Miller retroactively applicable.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Edward Jarrett (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Michael Edward Jarrett (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(l) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp, 496 Mich. 440 (Mich. 2014). “25 and MCL 769.25a to the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.