People of Michigan v. Tommy Brown ( 2016 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
September 29, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
153546 Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Richard H. Bernstein
Plaintiff-Appellee, Joan L. Larsen,
Justices
v SC: 153546
COA: 323793
Wayne CC: 11-001735-FC
TOMMY BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 23, 2016
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals
judgment holding that the fourth habitual offender statute, MCL 769.12(1)(a), operated to
preclude relief in this case pursuant to People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015). The
Court of Appeals clearly erred in relying on a subsection of the statute that was adopted
by amendment after the offenses were committed in this case. See 2012 PA 319 (eff
10/1/12). We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether the
court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing procedure
described in Lockridge. 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.
With regard to the defendant’s challenge to the assessment of court costs, leave to
appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be
reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of
Appeals. 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.
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.
September 29, 2016
p0922
Clerk