People of Michigan v. Tykeith L Turner ( 2020 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
January 17, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack,
Chief Justice
158068 David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem
Stephen J. Markman
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Brian K. Zahra
Plaintiff-Appellee, Richard H. Bernstein
v SC: 158068 Elizabeth T. Clement
COA: 336406 Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices
Wayne CC: 95-010246-FC
TYKEITH L. TURNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral
arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we REVERSE the May 17,
2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit
Court to reinstate the December 21, 2016 judgment of sentence.
The Court of Appeals erred to the extent it held that MCL 769.25a does not allow
a defendant to be resentenced on concurrent sentences. People v Turner, unpublished per
curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 17, 2018 (Docket No. 336406), p 3.
Section 25a creates a resentencing procedure for sentences in violation of Miller v
Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US ___; 136 S. Ct. 718
(2016). Under that procedure, the prosecuting attorney was required to “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 [Montgomery].” MCL
769.25a(4)(a). Once that occurred, the defendant was not required to file a separate
motion for relief from judgment in order to seek resentencing on his concurrent sentence
for assault with intent to murder.
A sentence is invalid if it is “based upon . . . a misconception of law . . . .” People
v Miles, 454 Mich. 90, 96 (1997). In the Miller context, a concurrent sentence for a lesser
offense is invalid if there is reason to believe that it was based on a legal misconception
that the defendant was required to serve a mandatory sentence of life without parole on
the greater offense. Accordingly, at a Miller resentencing, the trial court may exercise its
discretion to resentence a defendant on a concurrent sentence if it finds that the sentence
was based on a legal misconception that the defendant was required to serve a mandatory
sentence of life without parole on the greater offense.
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.
January 17, 2020
p0114
Clerk