Opinion
SC: 163369 COA: 348732
12-09-2022
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Michael CZARNECKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of January 4, 2022, the application for leave to appeal the June 10, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Parks (Docket No. 162086) and People v Poole (Docket No. 161529). On order of the Court, the motion to accept the amended Standard 4 brief is GRANTED. Parks having been decided on July 28, 2022, 510 Mich ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3008548 (2022), and Poole having been decided on July 28, 2022, 510 Mich ––––, 977 N.W.2d 530 (2022), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the defendant's mandatory sentence of life without parole for a murder committed at the age of 19 is cruel or unusual punishment under Const. 1963, art. 1, § 16. See Parks , supra. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Zahra, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I dissent from the part of this Court's order remanding the case for reconsideration in light of People v Parks , 510 Mich ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3008548 (2022) (Docket No. 162086), which held that Const. 1963, art. 1, § 16 bars mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 18-year-old homicide offenders. Because defendant was over the age of 18 at the time he committed first-degree murder, he is not entitled to relief under Parks. Therefore, I would deny leave on all the issues raised in defendant's application.
Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
For the reasons stated in Chief Justice CLEMENT ’s dissent in People v Parks , 510 Mich ––––, –––– N.W.2d. ––––, 2022 WL 3008548 (2022) (Docket No. 162086), I do not believe that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a defendant who committed first-degree murder when he was over the age of 17 is unconstitutional. Therefore, I would deny leave to appeal on all of the issues raised by defendant.