People of Michigan v. Troy Lavaughn Jones Jr ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                                        Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    March 29, 2016                                                                                       Robert P. Young, Jr.,
    Chief Justice
    150488-9 & (57)(58)(59)(60)                                                                          Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    Bridget M. McCormack
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                                                        David F. Viviano
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                       Richard H. Bernstein
    v                                                                 SC: 150488                              Joan L. Larsen,
    COA: 315582                                       Justices
    Allegan CC: 08-015991-FH
    TROY LaVAUGHN JONES, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v                                                                 SC: 150489
    COA: 315713
    Allegan CC: 08-016032-FH
    TROY LaVAUGHN JONES, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED.
    The application for leave to appeal the September 23, 2014 judgment of the Court of
    Appeals and the motions to remand and for appeal bond are considered. Pursuant to
    MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND these cases to the
    Allegan Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed materially
    different sentences under the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 
    498 Mich. 358
    (2015). On remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part
    VI of our opinion. If the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same
    sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the
    original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed
    the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall
    resentence the defendant. The trial court shall also consider the defendant’s argument
    concerning the imposition of costs, and determine whether costs should be imposed and
    the amount, if any, that should be assessed. In all other respects, leave to appeal is
    DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be
    reviewed by this Court. The motion for bond pending appeal is DENIED.
    We do not retain jurisdiction.
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    March 29, 2016
    p0321
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 150488

Filed Date: 3/29/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/31/2016