# People v. Lockridge

> Michigan Supreme Court · July 29, 2015 · 498 Mich. 358

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2822014

## Case

- **Full name:** People of Michigan v. Rahim Omarkhan Lockridge
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 29, 2015
- **Citations:** 498 Mich. 358; 870 N.W.2d 502; 2015 Mich. LEXIS 1774
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Young, Kelly, Viviano, Bernstein, McCormack, Zahra, Markman
- **Cited by:** 1,871 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2822014

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the statutory sentencing guidelines violate the Sixth Amendment because "the guidelines require judicial fact-finding beyond facts admitted by the defendant or found by the jury to score offense variables (OVs) that mandatorily increase the floor of the guideli…
- holding that the remedy for the unconstitutionality of the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines was to remove the mandatory component, allowing courts to use the guidelines in an advisory capacity that is subject to review for reasonableness
- holding that there was no due process violation where the sentencing court vacated the defendant’s original sentence and imposed the exact same sentence
- holding that Michigan’s sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment and clarifying how this new holding would apply to future defendants even though that defendant was not entitled to relief under plain-error review

## Opinion text

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Chief Justice: Justices:

Syllabus Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions:
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Corbin R. Davis

PEOPLE v LOCKRIDGE

Docket No. 149073. Argued January 15, 2015 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2015.

Rahim Omarkhan Lockridge was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of
his wife, MCL 750.321, following a jury trial in the Oakland Circuit Court. His minimum
sentence range calculated under the sentencing guidelines, MCL 777.1 et seq., was 43 to 86
months. The court, Nanci J. Grant, J., concluded that there were factors not accounted for in
scoring the guidelines, including a probation violation, killing his wife in front of their three
children, leaving the children at home with their mother dead on the floor, and prior domestic
violence. Citing these as substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the minimum
sentence range, MCL 769.34(3), the court sentenced defendant to a term of 8 years (96 months)
to 15 years (the statutory maximum sentence). Defendant appealed, challenging both the scoring
of the guidelines and the trial court’s decision to exceed the guidelines minimum sentence range.
While his case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court decided
Alleyne v United States, 570 US ___; 133 S Ct 2151 (2013), which extended the rule of Apprendi
v New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000), and held that a fact that increases either end of a defendant’s
sentencing range must have been admitted by the defendant or found by the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. After allowing defendant to file a supplemental brief challenging the
guidelines scoring on Alleyne grounds, the Court of Appeals, BECKERING, P.J., and O’CONNELL
and SHAPIRO, JJ., affirmed defendant’s sentence in three separate opinions and rejected the
Alleyne challenge. Judge O’CONNELL stated in the lead opinion that the panel was bound by
People v Herron, 303 Mich App 392 (2013), which had rejected the same argument based on
Alleyne. Judge BECKERING stated in her concurring opinion that had she not been bound by
Herron, she would have held that requiring judicial fact-finding to set the guidelines mandatory
minimum sentence range violated Alleyne and that the guidelines should be made advisory to
cure the constitutional problem. In his concurring opinion, Judge SHAPIRO stated that he would
have held that Alleyne only bars requiring judicial fact-finding to set the bottom of the minimum
sentence range under the guidelines, so only the bottom of the range needed to be made advisory
to cure the constitutional flaw. 304 Mich App 278 (2014). Defendant sought leave to appeal,
and the Supreme Court granted his application to address the constitutional question presented
by defendant’s Alleyne challenge. 496 Mich 852 (2014).

In an opinion by Justice MCCORMACK, joined by Chief Justice YOUNG and Justices
KELLY, VIVIANO, and BERNSTEIN, Supreme Court held:
The Apprendi rule, as extended by Alleyne, applies to Michigan’s sentencing guidelines
and renders them unconstitutional to the extent that they require judicial fact-finding beyond
facts admitted by the defendant or found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt to score offense
variables that increase the floor of the guidelines minimum sentence range. To remedy the
constitutional violation, MCL 769.34(2) must be severed to the extent that it makes mandatory a
minimum sentence range calculated on the basis of facts not admitted by the defendant or found
by the jury. It was also necessary to strike down the requirement in MCL 769.34(3) that a
sentencing court that departs from the applicable range must articulate a substantial and
compelling reason for doing so. A guidelines minimum sentence range calculated in violation of
Apprendi and Alleyne is advisory only, but a sentencing court must determine the applicable
guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence. Appellate courts must
review for reasonableness any sentences that depart from the guidelines range.

1. Apprendi held that other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the
penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be admitted by the defendant
or submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that failing to do so violated a
defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, notice, and trial by jury. Following Apprendi
and its progeny, all of which addressed determinate sentencing schemes, the Michigan Supreme
Court held in People v Drohan, 475 Mich 140 (2006), that the rule did not apply to Michigan’s
indeterminate sentencing scheme, reasoning in part that the sentencing court’s power to impose a
sentence always derives from the jury’s verdict because the jury’s verdict authorizes the
maximum sentence set by statute. Alleyne, however, concluded that mandatory minimum
sentences were equally subject to the Apprendi rule, holding that a fact that increases either end
of the sentence range produces a new penalty and constitutes an ingredient of the offense.

2. Defendant argued that because Alleyne extended the Apprendi rule from statutory
maximum sentences to mandatory minimum sentences, the rule applied to Michigan’s sentencing
guidelines. A scheme of mandatory minimum sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment if it
constrains the discretion of the sentencing court by compelling an increase in the mandatory
minimum sentence beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict alone. Michigan’s sentencing
guidelines do so to the extent that the floor of the guidelines range compels a court to impose a
mandatory minimum sentence beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict. Stated differently, to
the extent that the floor of the guidelines range is increased by scoring offense variables (OVs)
using facts that the court found by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than facts admitted by
the defendant or necessarily found by the jury, the procedure violates the Sixth Amendment.
Because Herron held to the contrary, it must be overruled.

3. Remedying the violation requires that the sentencing guidelines be advisory only.
Accordingly, MCL 769.34(2) must be severed to the extent that it makes mandatory the
minimum sentence range as scored on the basis of facts beyond those admitted by the defendant
or found by the jury. The requirement in MCL 769.34(3) of a substantial and compelling reason
to depart from that range must also be struck down. When OVs have been scored on the basis of
facts not admitted by the defendant or found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury, the
sentencing court may depart from the resulting minimum sentence range without articulating
substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. An appellate court must review for
reasonableness a sentence that departs from the applicable range, and resentencing will be
required when a sentence is determined to be unreasonable. Sentencing courts must continue to
consult the applicable guidelines range, however, and take it into account when imposing a
sentence. Further, sentencing courts must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate
appellate review.

4. Because defendant did not object to the scoring of the OVs at sentencing on
Apprendi/Alleyne grounds, the appropriate review in his case was for plain error affecting
substantial rights. Defendant received a minimum sentence that was an upward departure that
did not rely on the minimum sentence range from the improperly scored guidelines, and the
sentencing court stated on the record its reasons for departure, as it was required to do.
Therefore, defendant could not show prejudice from any error in scoring the OVs in violation of
Alleyne. Defendant’s guidelines minimum sentence range was irrelevant to the upward departure
sentence he ultimately received. Accordingly, he could not show the prejudice necessary to
establish plain error and was not entitled to resentencing.

5. With respect to the cases held in abeyance for this case, for those in which (1) facts
admitted by the defendant and (2) facts found by the jury were sufficient to assess the minimum
number of OV points necessary for the defendant’s guidelines score to fall in the cell of the
sentencing grid under which he or she was sentenced, that defendant suffered no prejudice from
any error. Accordingly, no plain error occurred in those cases, and no further inquiry will be
required.

6. For cases held in abeyance in which facts admitted by the defendant or found by the
jury’s verdict were insufficient to assess the minimum number of OV points necessary for the
defendant’s guidelines score to fall in the cell of the sentencing grid under which he or she was
sentenced, an unconstitutional constraint impaired that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right.
Those defendants (1) who can demonstrate that their guidelines minimum sentence range was
actually constrained by the violation of the Sixth Amendment and (2) whose sentences were not
subject to an upward departure can establish a threshold showing of the potential for plain error
sufficient to warrant a remand to the sentencing court for further inquiry. United States v
Crosby, 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005), set forth an analysis under which it was generally
appropriate to remand cases on direct review for the limited purpose of permitting the sentencing
court to determine whether to resentence under the new sentencing regime and, if so, to
resentence. Essentially, a sentence imposed under a mistaken perception of the requirements of
law will satisfy plain-error analysis if the sentence imposed under a correct understanding would
have been materially different. Accordingly, cases in which the defendant’s minimum sentence
was established by applying Michigan’s sentencing guidelines in violation of the Sixth
Amendment should be remanded to the sentencing court for it to determine whether it would
have imposed a materially different sentence but for the constitutional error and resentencing if
the court so concluded.

7. Crosby remands are warranted only in cases involving sentences imposed on or before
July 29, 2015, the date of the decision in this case. For defendants sentenced after this decision,
traditional plain-error review will apply if the error was unpreserved. On a Crosby remand, the
sentencing court should first allow the defendant an opportunity to inform the court that he or she
will not seek resentencing. If notification is not received in a timely manner, the court (1) should
obtain the views of counsel in some form, (2) may but is not required to hold a hearing on the
matter, and (3) need not have the defendant present when it decides whether to resentence the
defendant, but (4) must have the defendant present, as required by law, if it decides to resentence
the defendant. Further, in determining whether the court would have imposed a materially
different sentence but for the unconstitutional constraint, the court should consider only the
circumstances existing at the time of the original sentence.

Defendant’s sentence affirmed; Michigan sentencing guidelines statutes struck down in
part as unconstitutional and severed in part.

Justice MARKMAN, joined by Justice ZAHRA, dissenting, concluded that Michigan’s
sentencing system did not offend the Sixth Amendment. Under Michigan’s indeterminate
sentencing guidelines, a defendant’s maximum sentence is prescribed by statute, and upon a
guilty verdict, the defendant is subject to serving this maximum sentence. Accordingly, the
jury’s verdict authorizes punishment of the defendant to the maximum extent allowed by the
statute under which he or she was convicted. The sentencing court has no influence over this
authority and no authority to usurp it. At sentencing, the judge’s exercise of judgment is limited
to selecting a minimum sentence from within a recommended minimum sentence range that is
calculated on the basis of the defendant’s prior record variables and offense variables. This
minimum sentence, however, merely establishes the defendant’s earliest parole eligibility date
and has no effect on the punishment imposed on the defendant as a result of the jury’s verdict.
The defendant has no legal right to be released before the statutory maximum to which he or she
has been made subject by the jury’s determination, and the defendant has no constitutional right
to parole. As a result, an increase in a defendant’s minimum parole eligibility date does not
expose the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury’s verdict, and the
sentencing court’s exercise of judgment in establishing that date does not infringe the jury’s
authority, as the United States Supreme Court recognized in Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296
(2004), with respect to indeterminate sentencing systems. Furthermore, Michigan’s
indeterminate sentencing guidelines do not produce mandatory minimum sentences. A
mandatory minimum sentence is one that requires the sentencing court to impose a statutorily
fixed minimum term of incarceration for a particular crime when certain statutory criteria have
been satisfied. While some statutes do require a true mandatory minimum, defendants in
Michigan generally receive a minimum sentence as a function of a guidelines calculation of prior
record and offense variables that produce a recommended minimum sentence range, and that
minimum sentence represents only the earliest time at which a defendant can petition for release
on parole. Because Alleyne only applies to facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences,
Alleyne does not apply to Michigan’s sentencing guidelines. Justice MARKMAN further observed
how deeply ironic it was that under the majority’s holding, two decisions of the United States
Supreme Court that were intended to limit encroachment of the judicial power on the jury’s
authority, foster predictability and certainty in criminal sentencing, protect defendants’ rights,
and produce fairness in the sentencing process, among other things, will lead to entirely opposite
results. Justice MARKMAN would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

©2015 State of Michigan
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Chief Justice: Justices:

OPINION Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein

FILED July 29, 2015

STATE OF MICHIGAN

SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 149073

RAHIM OMARKHAN LOCKRIDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

MCCORMACK, J.
This case presents the question whether the Michigan sentencing guidelines

violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment fundamental right to a jury trial. We conclude

that the rule from Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466; 120 S Ct 2348; 147 L Ed 2d 435

(2000), as extended by Alleyne v United States, 570 US ___; 133 S Ct 2151; 186 L Ed 2d

314 (2013), applies to Michigan’s sentencing guidelines and renders them

constitutionally deficient. That deficiency is the extent to which the guidelines require

judicial fact-finding beyond facts admitted by the defendant or found by the jury to score
offense variables (OVs) that mandatorily increase the floor of the guidelines minimum

sentence range, i.e. the “mandatory minimum” sentence under Alleyne.

To remedy the constitutional violation, we sever MCL 769.34(2) to the extent that

it makes the sentencing guidelines range as scored on the basis of facts beyond those

admitted by the defendant or found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt mandatory.

We also strike down the requirement in MCL 769.34(3) that a sentencing court that

departs from the applicable guidelines range must articulate a substantial and compelling

reason for that departure. 1

Consistently with the remedy imposed by the United States Supreme Court in

United States v Booker, 543 US 220, 233; 125 S Ct 738; 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005), we

hold that a guidelines minimum sentence range calculated in violation of Apprendi and

Alleyne is advisory only and that sentences that depart from that threshold are to be

reviewed by appellate courts for reasonableness. Booker, 543 US at 264. To preserve as

much as possible the legislative intent in enacting the guidelines, however, we hold that a

sentencing court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account

when imposing a sentence. Id.

In this case the defendant’s guidelines minimum sentence range was irrelevant to

the upward departure sentence he ultimately received. Accordingly, we hold that he

1
To the extent that any part of MCL 769.34 or another statute refers to use of the
sentencing guidelines as mandatory or refers to departures from the guidelines, that part
or statute is also severed or struck down as necessary.

2
cannot show the prejudice necessary to establish plain error under People v Carines, 460

Mich 750; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), and we affirm his sentence. 2

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The defendant was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter for his wife’s

death. At sentencing, defense counsel agreed with scoring OV 3 (physical injury to

victim) 3 at 25 points and OV 5 (psychological injury to member of victim’s family) 4 at

15 points; counsel did not mention OV 6 (offender’s intent to kill or injure another

individual), 5 for which 10 points were assessed. Counsel did challenge the scoring of OV

9 (number of victims) 6 and OV 10 (exploitation of a vulnerable victim), 7 but both only on

the ground that the facts of the case did not support the number of points assessed by a

preponderance of the evidence. The trial court felt otherwise and kept the score of both

variables at 10 points.

2
Our order granting leave to appeal did not limit our consideration of the issues
presented to the Alleyne question. People v Lockridge, 496 Mich 852 (2014). With
respect to the defendant’s other argument that the trial court did not present sufficient
substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the sentencing guidelines, we agree
with the Court of Appeals that the reasons articulated by the trial court adequately
justified the minimal (10-month) departure above the top of the guidelines minimum
sentence range.
3
MCL 777.33(1)(c).
4
MCL 777.35(1)(a).
5
MCL 777.36(1)(c).
6
MCL 777.39(1)(c).
7
MCL 777.40(1)(b).

3
With his prior record variable score of 35 points, the defendant’s resulting

guidelines minimum sentence range was 43 to 86 months, 8 but the trial court exceeded

the guidelines and imposed a minimum sentence of 8 years (96 months) and a maximum

sentence of 15 years (180 months, the statutory maximum). 9 As substantial and

compelling reasons justifying the departure, the trial court cited that defendant had

violated probation orders that forbade him from being where he was when he killed his

wife, that he killed his wife in front of their three children as they struggled to stop him

from doing so, and that he left the children at home with their mother dead on the floor

without concern for their physical or emotional well-being, which were not factors

already accounted for in scoring the guidelines. Furthermore, the court said, the extent of

the defendant’s prior domestic violence was not considered in the guidelines.

The defendant appealed by right in the Court of Appeals, challenging the scoring

of the guidelines and the trial court’s decision to exceed the guidelines minimum

sentence range. While this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the United States

Supreme Court decided Alleyne, and defense counsel moved to file a supplemental brief

challenging the scoring of the guidelines on Alleyne grounds. The Court of Appeals

granted that motion. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the

defendant’s sentence and rejected his Alleyne challenge to the scoring of guidelines,

adhering to its recent decision in People v Herron, 303 Mich App 392; 845 NW2d 533

8
MCL 777.16p; MCL 777.64.
9
MCL 750.321.

4
(2013), which had rejected that same argument. 10 People v Lockridge, 304 Mich App

278, 284; 849 NW2d 388 (2014) (opinion by O’CONNELL, J.). Judge BECKERING and

Judge SHAPIRO filed concurring opinions agreeing with Judge O’CONNELL’s lead opinion

that the panel was bound by Herron, but disagreeing with the outcome reached in

Herron. If not bound by Herron, Judge BECKERING would have held that requiring

judicial fact-finding to set the guidelines mandatory minimum sentence range violated

Alleyne. Id. at 285 (opinion by BECKERING, P.J.). She would have made the guidelines

advisory to cure the constitutional problem. Id. at 286. Judge SHAPIRO would have held

that Alleyne only bars requiring judicial fact-finding to set the bottom of the minimum

sentence range, so only the bottom of the range need be made advisory to cure the

constitutional flaw. Id. at 311, 315-316 (opinion by SHAPIRO, J.)

The defendant filed an application for leave to appeal in this Court. We granted

leave to appeal to address the significant constitutional question presented. 11 People v

Lockridge, 496 Mich 852 (2014).

10
The defendant in Herron subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal in this
Court, and that application is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of this case.
People v Herron, 846 NW2d 924 (Mich, 2014).
11
Our grant order specifically directed the parties to address

(1) whether a judge’s determination of the appropriate sentencing
guidelines range, MCL 777.1, et seq., establishes a “mandatory minimum
sentence,” such that the facts used to score the offense variables must be
admitted by the defendant or established beyond a reasonable doubt to the
trier of fact, Alleyne v United States, 570 US ___; 133 S Ct 2151; 186 L Ed
2d 314 (2013); and (2) whether the fact that a judge may depart downward
from the sentencing guidelines range for “substantial and compelling”
reasons, MCL 769.34(3), prevents the sentencing guidelines from being a

5
II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation . . . . [US Const, Am VI.]

The right to a jury trial is a fundamental one, with a long history that dates back to the

founding of this country and beyond. Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US 145, 148-154; 88 S

Ct 1444; 20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968) (discussing the fundamental nature of the right and its

long history).

The question presented in this case relates specifically to whether the procedure

involved in setting a mandatory sentence infringes a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right

to a jury trial. One key to this inquiry is whether the pertinent facts that must be found

are an element of the offense or a mere sentencing factor. See, e.g., Jones v United

States, 526 US 227, 232; 119 S Ct 1215; 143 L Ed 2d 311 (1999) (“Much turns on the

determination that a fact is an element of an offense rather than a sentencing

consideration, given that elements must be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury,

and proven by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.”). The first United States

Supreme Court case warranting specific mention here is McMillan v Pennsylvania, 477

US 79; 106 S Ct 2411; 91 L Ed 2d 67 (1986).

“mandatory minimum” under Alleyne, see United States v Booker, 543 US
220; 125 S Ct 738; 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005).

6
In McMillan, the Supreme Court held that the visible possession of a firearm,

which the Pennsylvania statute at issue used as a fact increasing the defendant’s

mandatory sentence, did not constitute an element of the crimes enumerated in its

mandatory sentencing statute. Rather, it “instead is a sentencing factor that comes into

play only after the defendant has been found guilty of one of those crimes beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Id. at 86. Accordingly, the McMillan Court rejected the defendant’s

argument that Pennsylvania’s mandatory minimum sentencing act was unconstitutional.

Things began to change dramatically with Jones, however. In that case, the Court

held that the fact of whether a victim suffered serious bodily injury, which authorized an

increase in the defendant’s sentence from 15 to 25 years, was an element of a federal

statute prohibiting carjacking or aiding and abetting carjacking that must be found by a

jury. Although Jones was decided on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, the

Court concluded that treating the fact of bodily injury as a mere sentencing factor “would

raise serious constitutional questions.” Jones, 526 US at 251. Justices Stevens and

Scalia wrote concurring opinions in Jones that presaged the constitutional rule that would

be established a year later in Apprendi. Id. at 252-253 (Stevens, J., concurring); id. at 253

(Scalia, J., concurring).

In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court announced the general Sixth

Amendment principle at issue in this case: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any

fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum

must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 US

7
at 490 (emphasis added). 12 The Court struck down as unconstitutional a statute that

provided for a possible increase in the maximum term of imprisonment from 10 to 20

years if the trial court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant

“acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race,

color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity.” Id. at 469, quoting NJ

Stat Ann 2C:44-3(e). The Supreme Court rejected the lower courts’ conclusions that the

statute was constitutional because the finding of intent to intimidate was a mere

“sentencing factor” under McMillan. Id. at 492.

In Harris v United States, 536 US 545, 550; 122 S Ct 2406; 153 L Ed 2d 524

(2002), overruled by Alleyne, the Supreme Court was squarely presented with the

question “whether McMillan stands after Apprendi.” A majority held that the Apprendi

rule did not bar judicially found facts altering “mandatory minimum” sentences. But

notably, only a plurality of the Court joined the portion of Justice Kennedy’s opinion that

distinguished Apprendi from McMillan. Id. at 556-568. In his concurring opinion,

Justice Breyer wrote that he could not “easily distinguish Apprendi . . . from this case in

terms of logic,” but he joined the Court’s judgment only because he could not “yet accept

[Apprendi’s] rule.” Id. at 569-570 (Breyer, J., concurring in part). The dissenting

opinion took notice, observing that “[t]his leaves only a minority of the Court embracing

the distinction between McMillan and Apprendi that forms the basis of today’s

holding . . . .” Id. at 583 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

12
The Court had previously recognized an “exceptional departure” from this historical
practice in Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224; 118 S Ct 1219; 140 L Ed 2d
350 (1998), for the existence of a prior conviction. Apprendi, 530 US at 487-488.

8
Next came Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296; 124 S Ct 2531; 159 L Ed 2d 403

(2004). In that case, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the state of

Washington’s “determinate” sentencing scheme and observed that “indeterminate

sentencing” does not infringe on the power of a jury. Id. at 308. Ultimately, the Blakely

Court held the Washington scheme unconstitutional to the extent that it allowed the trial

court to impose a sentence greater than the “statutory maximum” sentence authorized by

the jury verdict on the basis of the court’s finding that the defendant had acted with

“deliberate cruelty.” Id. at 303-304. The Court again emphasized that “the ‘statutory

maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely

on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Id. at

303.

In Booker, the Supreme Court addressed the application of Apprendi to a

“determinate” sentencing scheme similar to Washington’s, the federal sentencing

guidelines. Two different majorities of the Court held that the guidelines were

unconstitutional under Apprendi and Blakely, Booker, 542 US at 226 (opinion by

Stevens, J.), and that the proper remedy for the constitutional infirmity was to make the

guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, id. at 245 (opinion by Breyer, J.).

The ripple effects of Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker have been significant in both

state and federal courts. See, e.g., Duncan v United States, 552 F3d 442, 445 (CA 6,

2009) (referring to the “Apprendi revolution”). The changes in the law wrought by this

new rule led this Court to address whether Michigan’s sentencing guidelines were

susceptible to a Sixth Amendment constitutional violation, first in a footnote in People v

Claypool, 470 Mich 715, 730 n 14; 684 NW2d 278 (2004), and later at greater length in

9
People v Drohan, 475 Mich 140, 146; 715 NW2d 778 (2006). In both Claypool and

Drohan, this Court concluded that the Apprendi/Blakely rule did not apply to Michigan’s

sentencing scheme at all. This Court reached this conclusion on the basis of its

determination that the Apprendi/Blakely rule was inapplicable to our “indeterminate”

scheme. We reasoned in part that “the trial court’s power to impose a sentence is always

derived from the jury’s verdict” because the jury’s verdict authorized the “statutory

maximum” sentence set by statute. Drohan, 475 Mich at 161-162.

In Alleyne, the Supreme Court overruled Harris and for the first time concluded

that mandatory minimum sentences were equally subject to the Apprendi rule, holding

that “a fact increasing either end of the range produces a new penalty and constitutes an

ingredient of the offense.” Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2160 (emphasis added).

Alleyne, like Harris, involved a statute that provided for a mandatory minimum sentence

of five years, but that mandatory minimum increased to seven years if it was determined

that the defendant had “brandished” a firearm. The Court concluded that there was “no

basis in principle or logic to distinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that

increase the minimum,” id. at 2163, but noted that its holding did not restrict fact-finding

used to guide judicial discretion in selecting a punishment within the limits fixed by law,

id. Justice Breyer concurred separately, explaining that while he “continue[d] to disagree

with Apprendi,” he nevertheless believed that it was “highly anomalous to read Apprendi

as insisting that juries find sentencing facts that permit a judge to impose a higher

sentence while not insisting that juries find sentencing facts that require a judge to

impose a higher sentence.” Id. at 2166-2167 (Breyer, J., concurring).

10
III. ANALYSIS

A Sixth Amendment challenge presents a question of constitutional law that this

Court reviews de novo. Drohan, 475 Mich at 146.

The defendant argues that because Alleyne extended the Apprendi rule from

statutory maximum sentences to mandatory minimum sentences, Michigan’s sentencing

guidelines are no longer immune from that rule. We agree. From Apprendi and its

progeny, including Alleyne, we believe the following test provides the proper inquiry for

whether a scheme of mandatory minimum sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment:

Does that scheme constrain the discretion of the sentencing court by compelling an

increase in the mandatory minimum sentence beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict

alone? Michigan’s sentencing guidelines do so to the extent that the floor of the

guidelines range compels a trial judge to impose a mandatory minimum sentence beyond

that authorized by the jury verdict. Stated differently, to the extent that OVs scored on

the basis of facts not admitted by the defendant or necessarily found by the jury verdict

increase the floor of the guidelines range, i.e. the defendant’s “mandatory minimum”

sentence, that procedure violates the Sixth Amendment.

The pertinent language in Alleyne supports this conclusion. “Elevating the low-

end of a sentencing range heightens the loss of liberty associated with the crime: the

defendant’s ‘expected punishment has increased as a result of the narrowed range’ and

‘the prosecution is empowered, by invoking the mandatory minimum, to require the

judge to impose a higher punishment than he might wish.’ ” Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133

S Ct at 2161, quoting Apprendi, 530 US at 522 (Thomas, J., concurring). Similarly, by

virtue of the fully scored sentencing guidelines, a judge is required to “impose a higher

11
punishment than he might wish.” Just as the judge’s finding that there was “brandishing”

in Alleyne aggravated the penalty in that case by increasing the floor of the range

prescribed by law, 13 the OV scoring judges must do as part of our system increases the

bottom of the mandatory guidelines range used to set the minimum sentence.

In criticizing the Alleyne majority’s extension of the Apprendi rule, Chief Justice

Roberts’s dissenting opinion also had language supporting this conclusion. He wrote:

Under the rule in place until today, a legislature could tell judges that
certain facts carried certain weight, and require the judge to devise a
sentence based on that weight—so long as the sentence remained within
the range authorized by the jury. Now, in the name of the jury right that
formed a barrier between the defendant and the State, the majority has
erected a barrier between judges and legislatures, establishing that
discretionary sentencing is the domain of judges. Legislatures must keep
their respectful distance. [Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2170-2171
(Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (emphasis added).]

In other words, unrestrained judicial discretion within a broad range is in; legislative

constraints on that discretion that increase a sentence (whether minimum or maximum)

beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict are out.

In Herron, the Court of Appeals found no constitutional flaw in our sentencing

guidelines, reasoning in part that judicial fact-finding in our guidelines scheme is

permissible because it is used only to “inform the trial court’s sentencing discretion

within the maximum determined by statute and the jury’s verdict.” Herron, 303 Mich

App at 403. 14 We reject this analysis because it ignores two key aspects of the Apprendi

13
Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2160, 2163.
14
To the extent that the Herron panel’s analysis rested on its determination that the
sentencing guidelines do not establish a “mandatory minimum” sentence, we reject it for
the reasons discussed in Part III(C) of this opinion.

12
rule as extended by Alleyne: (1) the fact-finding is used to constrain, not merely inform,

the court’s sentencing discretion by increasing the mandatory minimum sentence and (2)

because Alleyne now prohibits increasing the minimum as well as the maximum sentence

in this manner, it is insufficient to say that the guidelines scheme is constitutional because

the maximum is set by statute and authorized by the jury’s verdict.

Consider this example: a defendant with no prior record who is convicted of

kidnapping, MCL 750.349, a Class A offense, MCL 777.16q, which carries a statutory

maximum sentence of life in prison. Assume further that no facts necessary to score any

of the OVs are admitted by the defendant or necessarily found by the jury as part of the

verdict. Under our sentencing guidelines, that defendant would be subject to a minimum

sentence of no less than 21 months (the bottom of the applicable guidelines range) 15 and a

maximum sentence of life (the statutory maximum). 16 If this were the end of the road

and the trial court were free to sentence the defendant anywhere within this range, we

would agree that no Sixth Amendment impediment exists.

But there is more. MCL 777.21(1)(a) and MCL 777.22(1) direct courts to score

OVs 1 through 4, 7 through 14, 19 and 20 for crimes against a person, a designation that

applies to kidnapping, MCL 777.16q. Under this hypothetical situation, a trial court

could find facts not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant that could potentially

increase the floor of the defendant’s minimum sentence from 21 months to as much as

15
MCL 777.62. Because the top of the guidelines range does not implicate the Sixth
Amendment, it is not relevant to this hypothetical and we therefore do not discuss it.
16
MCL 750.349.

13
108 months. MCL 777.62. Those facts are “fact[s] increasing either end of the range” of

penalties to which a defendant is exposed, Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2160, and

therefore the process violates the Sixth Amendment.

The example provided by the Blakely Court of what differentiated a

constitutionally permissible “indeterminate” sentencing scheme from an impermissible

one, which the Drohan Court quoted and the dissent here also quotes, further illustrates

this point:

In a system that says the judge may punish burglary with 10 to 40 years,
every burglar knows he is risking 40 years in jail. In a system that punishes
burglary with a 10-year sentence, with another 30 added for use of a gun,
the burglar who enters a home unarmed is entitled to no more than a 10-
year sentence—and by reason of the Sixth Amendment the facts bearing
upon that entitlement must be found by a jury. [Blakely, 542 US at 309.]

Michigan’s sentencing scheme is not like the first example, in which a court has

unfettered discretion to impose a sentence within a range authorized by the jury’s verdict.

Rather, it is more akin to the latter example. Guidelines scored solely on a defendant’s

admissions and prior convictions set a baseline minimum sentence (i.e. 10 years in the

Blakely example or 21 months in our hypothetical example), with additional time added

by aggravating factors (such as possession or use of a gun, as in the Blakely example): the

OVs, which are generally scored on the basis of facts found by the court rather than a

jury. The sentencing court’s authority to score the OVs is constrained by law. 17 A

17
See, e.g., MCL 777.31(1) (directing that the OV be scored by “determining which of
the following [circumstances] apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to
the one that has the highest number of points”); People v Houston, 473 Mich 399, 407;
702 NW2d 530 (2005).

14
defendant’s possible minimum sentence is increased as a result of that scoring, and the

court is constrained to impose a minimum sentence in conformity with the applicable

guidelines range that is increased by the scoring of those OVs. Thus, Michigan does

indeed have a system that punishes an offense with a baseline minimum sentence of no

less than X months, with the potential for Y months to be added for the use of a gun, Z

months to be added for killing a victim, and so forth. This reality could be ignored when

Drohan was decided because the Apprendi rule applied only to “statutory maximums”

and scoring the sentencing guidelines and establishing the guidelines minimum sentence

range does not alter the maximum sentence. But that analysis is no longer sustainable in

light of Alleyne’s extension of the Apprendi rule to minimum sentences.

In Drohan, this Court analyzed the evolution of the Apprendi rule and concluded

that the “statutory maximum” sentence in Michigan for Apprendi/Blakely purposes is

generally the maximum sentence set by the statute setting forth the elements of the

offense at issue. Drohan, 475 Mich at 164. Accordingly, because at that time the

Apprendi rule only applied to maximum sentences, not minimums, and judicial fact-

finding to set the guidelines range only affected minimum sentences, we held that

Michigan’s sentencing guidelines scheme did not violate the Sixth Amendment. On this

point, Drohan necessarily relied on Harris’s holding that the Apprendi rule did not apply

to minimum sentences. Harris, 536 US at 568.

Alleyne changed that. In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court overruled

Harris and held for the first time that the Apprendi rule applied with equal force to

minimum sentences. Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2155. With minimum

sentences now also relevant to the Sixth Amendment analysis, the statutory authority of

15
the court can infringe the constitutional authority of the jury because the guidelines used

to set the minimum sentence require a court to increase a defendant’s minimum sentence

beyond the minimum sentence authorized by the jury’s verdict alone. To the extent that

Drohan asserted that our sentencing scheme is constitutional because the jury verdict

always authorizes the maximum sentence provided by law, that analysis is no longer

sufficient to complete the constitutional analysis in light of Alleyne; rather, under Alleyne,

the Legislature may not require judicial fact-finding that results in a mandatory increase

in either the minimum or maximum sentence beyond the range set by the jury verdict.

Therefore, a straightforward application of the language and holding in Alleyne

leads to the conclusion that Michigan’s sentencing guidelines scheme violates the Sixth

Amendment. The prosecution and amici curiae do not dispute the holding in Alleyne, but

instead advance three arguments in an attempt to sidestep it. First, it is asserted that just

as we concluded in Drohan, the Apprendi rule (as now extended by Alleyne) does not

apply to Michigan’s sentencing scheme because that scheme is “indeterminate.” Second,

Michigan’s sentencing guidelines do not violate the Sixth Amendment because the

minimum sentences they set merely establish a parole eligibility date rather than an

absolute prison release date and there is no constitutional right to parole. Third, the

minimum sentence set by the sentencing guidelines is not a “mandatory minimum”

sentence for purposes of Alleyne. For the reasons that follow, we reject each of these

arguments.

16
A. MICHIGAN’S “INDETERMINATE” SENTENCING SCHEME

The prosecution and the dissent rely primarily on their conclusion that the

Apprendi rule does not apply to “indeterminate” sentencing schemes like Michigan’s to

dismiss the defendant’s constitutional claim. It is certainly correct that the United States

Supreme Court has repeatedly distinguished between “determinate” and “indeterminate”

sentencing systems and referred to the latter as not implicating Sixth Amendment

concerns and that Alleyne did nothing to alter or undermine that distinction. Because we

are bound by the United States Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Sixth

Amendment such as Apprendi and Alleyne, however, it is critical to understand exactly

what those terms mean in that context rather than in the abstract. And significantly,

Michigan’s sentencing scheme is not “indeterminate” as the United States Supreme Court

has ever applied that term. 18

In Blakely, in responding to the dissent, the majority stated, without defining its

terms, that “indeterminate” sentencing schemes would not violate the Apprendi rule. In

quoted language relied on heavily by the prosecution and the dissent in this case, the

Court asserted:

By reversing the judgment below, we are not, as the State would
have it, “find[ing] determinate sentencing schemes unconstitutional.” This
case is not about whether determinate sentencing is constitutional, only
about how it can be implemented in a way that respects the Sixth
Amendment. . . .

18
In Drohan, we cited the definition of “indeterminate sentence” from Black’s Law
Dictionary (8th ed): a sentence “of an unspecified duration, such as one for a term of 10
to 20 years.” Drohan, 475 Mich at 153 n 10. Drohan was correct to say that Michigan
has an indeterminate sentencing scheme under that definition of the term.

17
JUSTICE O’CONNOR argues that, because determinate-sentencing
schemes involving judicial fact-finding entail less judicial discretion than
indeterminate schemes, the constitutionality of the latter implies the
constitutionality of the former. This argument is flawed on a number of
levels. First, the Sixth Amendment by its terms is not a limitation on
judicial power, but a reservation of jury power. It limits judicial power
only to the extent that the claimed judicial power infringes on the province
of the jury. Indeterminate sentencing does not do so. It increases judicial
discretion, to be sure, but not at the expense of the jury’s traditional
function of finding the facts essential to lawful imposition of the penalty.
Of course indeterminate schemes involve judicial fact-finding, in that a
judge (like a parole board) may implicitly rule on those facts he deems
important to the exercise of his sentencing discretion. But the facts do not
pertain to whether the defendant has a legal right to a lesser sentence—and
that makes all the difference insofar as judicial impingement upon the
traditional role of the jury is concerned. [Blakely, 542 US at 308-309
(citations omitted) (emphasis added).]

The Blakely dissent, however, identified states with both indeterminate and

determinate (as Drohan understood those terms) sentencing schemes as ones that Blakely

cast “constitutional doubt” over because they had “guidelines systems.” Id. at 323

(O’Connor, J., dissenting). Michigan was among the states listed. Id. Legal

commentators have also noted that the United States Supreme Court has never referred to

Michigan’s sentencing scheme as “indeterminate” for constitutional purposes and that

Justice O’Connor’s Blakely dissent suggested the opposite; rather, the Court’s focus in

discussing “indeterminate” schemes has been on the absence of mandatory constraints

placed on a court’s discretion when sentencing a defendant within a range of possible

sentences. See Hall, Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines by Any Other Name: When

“Indeterminate Structured Sentencing” Violates Blakely v Washington, 57 Drake L Rev

643, 669 & n 139 (2009) (hereinafter, Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines) (stating that “in

Blakely, the Supreme Court understood an indeterminate sentencing regime to be one in

18
which the sentencing judge enjoys ‘unfettered discretion’ within statutory and

constitutional limits, and that a mandatory sentencing guidelines system, even when used

in conjunction with a parole board, is fundamentally inconsistent with this definition of

indeterminate sentencing”) (emphasis added); Ball, Heinous, Atrocious, and Cruel:

Apprendi, Indeterminate Sentencing, and the Meaning of Punishment, 109 Colum L Rev

893, 907 (2009) (observing that the United States Supreme Court has used

“ ‘indeterminate’ to mean ‘advisory’ and ‘determinate’ to mean ‘binding’ (i.e.,

determinative of the outcome)”); see also Cunningham v California, 549 US 270, 291-

292 ; 127 S Ct 856; 166 L Ed 2d 856 (2007) (“Merely advisory provisions,

recommending but not requiring the selection of particular sentences in response to

differing sets of facts . . . would not implicate the Sixth Amendment.”), quoting Booker,

543 US at 233 (quotation marks omitted); Alleyne, 133 S Ct at 2165 (Sotomayor, J.,

concurring) (observing that the United States Supreme Court has “applied Apprendi to

strike down mandatory sentencing systems at the state and federal levels”) (emphasis

added). 19 At least one other court has also recognized that the United States Supreme

19
The United States Supreme Court cases that refer to “indeterminate sentencing” and
then immediately stress the exercise of vast judicial discretion within broad sentencing
ranges as the centerpiece of such a system are too numerous to cite here. For but a few
additional examples, see Almendarez-Torres, 523 US at 245-246 (discussing how judges
“have typically exercised their discretion within broad statutory ranges” and then citing a
source discussing the “history of indeterminate sentencing”); Mistretta v United States,
488 US 361, 363; 109 S Ct 647; 102 L Ed 2d 714 (1989) (discussing the federal
government’s longstanding practice of indeterminate sentencing as one in which
“[s]tatutes specified the penalties for crimes but nearly always gave the sentencing judge
wide discretion to decide whether the offender should be incarcerated and for how
long”); Jones, 526 US at 271 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (contrasting “a system of
indeterminate sentencing or a grant of vast discretion to the trial judge” and “a regime in
which there are more uniform penalties, prescribed by the legislature”) (emphasis added).

19
Court has used the term “indeterminate” “imprecisely.” Commonwealth v Yuhasz, 592 Pa

120, 133 n 4; 923 A2d 1111 (2007). 20 And at no time has the Supreme Court specifically

defined its use of the term or defined it by reference to Black’s Law Dictionary.

Accordingly, the relevant distinction between constitutionally permissible

“indeterminate” sentencing schemes and impermissible “determinate” sentencing

schemes, as the United States Supreme Court has used those terms, turns not on whether

the sentences produced by them contain one or two numbers; 21 rather, it turns on whether

judge-found facts are used to curtail judicial sentencing discretion by compelling an

increase in the defendant’s punishment. If so, the system violates the Sixth Amendment.

Michigan’s sentencing guidelines do just that.

Because Michigan’s sentencing scheme is not “indeterminate” as that term has

been used by the United States Supreme Court, our sentencing guidelines scheme cannot

be exempt from the Apprendi and Alleyne rule on that basis. And the escape hatch that

Harris provided for Drohan—that Apprendi applied only to maximum sentences and the

To the extent that the dissent criticizes our analysis on this point as “entirely speculative,”
and unsupported by binding authority, it simply ignores this footnote and cases cited in
the accompanying text.
20
Crucially, the Yuhasz Court cited this imprecision as a reason to hold that the fact that
its guidelines scheme is advisory, not its indeterminate nature, made the scheme
constitutionally sound.
21
Indeed, to reach that conclusion would be to ignore Alleyne’s clear acknowledgment
that there could be two constitutionally significant sentences: a mandatory minimum and
a statutory maximum. That only one number might exist in a given case seems of little
relevance to the analysis.

20
statutory maximums in Michigan are set by law and therefore never increased based on

judge-found facts—has been sealed by Alleyne.

B. NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PAROLE

In a permutation of its “indeterminate” sentencing argument, the dissent also

contends that Michigan’s sentencing scheme does not violate Alleyne because a

defendant’s minimum sentence merely determines when that defendant is eligible for

parole consideration and there is no constitutional entitlement to parole. This argument

was not raised by the prosecution, but was advanced instead by the Attorney General in

an amicus curiae brief. We have no quarrel with the general proposition that a defendant

has no constitutional entitlement to be paroled, as that proposition is well established by

Greenholtz v Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 US 1, 7; 99 S Ct

2100; 60 L Ed 2d 668 (1979), but we do not see its relevance here. The right at issue

includes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, not just the due-process right to be

free of deprivation of one’s liberty that was at issue in Greenholtz. 22 And that right

includes the right to have a “jury determination” of all the pertinent facts used in

increasing the prescribed range of penalties, including both the minimum and the

maximum sentences. The violation of that right occurs well before a defendant even

begins serving that sentence. Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2160 (noting that “a

22
We do not dispute the dissent’s correct contention that Apprendi and Alleyne stated that
they implicate both the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process. Post at 38 n 25. But it is for the very reason that both
of these rights are implicated that Greenholtz and other cases involving only the latter
necessarily cannot answer the question before us. Rather, it is Apprendi and Alleyne,
cases that implicate both rights, that are “highly relevant to the analysis.”

21
fact increasing either end of the range produces a new penalty and constitutes an

ingredient of the offense” that must be found by a jury). The failure to have the jury find

an element establishing “a distinct and aggravated crime,” id. at ___; 133 S Ct at 2163,

not the resulting sentence, is the constitutional deficiency, id. at ___; 133 S Ct at 2162

(observing that “if a judge were to find a fact that increased the statutory maximum

sentence, such a finding would violate the Sixth Amendment, even if the defendant

ultimately received a sentence falling within the original sentencing range”) (emphasis

added). Accordingly, the assertion that a defendant has no constitutional right to serve

less than his or her maximum sentence is entirely correct, but also entirely beside the

point. King & Applebaum, Alleyne on the Ground: Factfinding That Limits Eligibility

for Probation or Parole Release, 26 Fed Sent Rep 287, 289 (2014) (“The minimum

sentence that matters in Alleyne is the floor of the range available to the sentencing

judge, the penalty ‘affixed to the crime,’ not the sentence that might actually be served by

the offender. That a paroling authority may ultimately decide not to release the defendant

when he first becomes eligible is irrelevant.”). Neither the dissent nor the Attorney

General cites any other case for the novel proposition that application of the Apprendi

rule hinges on whether a defendant is entitled to immediate release upon completion of

the sentence at issue or whether the defendant is simply eligible for release or to be

paroled. 23

23
The dissent briefly cites Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539; 94 S Ct 2963; 41 L Ed 2d
935 (1974), and Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471; 92 S Ct 2593; 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972),
but both of those cases involve a criminal defendant’s rights in parole proceedings. Thus,
they are as inapposite here as Greenholtz.

22
Finally, it is worth noting that this argument is not supported by other state court

decisions applying Alleyne to their sentencing schemes. See, e.g., State v Soto, 299 Kan

102; 322 P3d 334 (2014) (rejecting as unconstitutional under Alleyne a statute that

provided for a prison sentence of life with 50 years before the possibility of parole). And

at bottom, what this argument ignores is that in Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that like

a maximum sentence, a minimum sentence enhanced by judicial fact-finding also

implicates the Sixth Amendment jury-trial protection. It is therefore no answer to say

that Alleyne is inapplicable here because a defendant has no constitutional right to parole.

C. “MANDATORY MINIMUM” SENTENCES UNDER ALLEYNE

The prosecution and the dissent’s final basis for concluding that Alleyne does not

apply to our sentencing guidelines scheme is that the guidelines do not produce

“mandatory minimum” sentences for Alleyne purposes. We again disagree.

First, this argument seems to assume that Alleyne applies only to what one might

consider traditional mandatory minimums, statutes that provide that upon conviction of

an offense, the court “shall sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment of not less

than” x number of years. This fails to account for the broad nature of the Apprendi rule

generally that “ ‘facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal

defendant is exposed’ ” must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Apprendi, 530 US at 490, quoting Jones, 526 US at 252-253 (emphasis added). While

Alleyne applied this rule to a mandatory minimum sentence, and therefore necessarily

spent a great deal of time articulating how the mandatory minimum sentence in that case

violated Apprendi, it also reemphasized that the Sixth Amendment applies to facts used to

23
set the range of sentences to which a defendant is exposed. Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133

S Ct at 2160 (“[B]ecause the legally prescribed range is the penalty affixed to the

crime, . . . it follows that a fact increasing either end of the range produces a new penalty

and constitutes an ingredient of the offense.”). Thus, Alleyne cannot be dismissed as

inapplicable simply because the statute at issue in that case looks different from our

statutory guidelines scheme or because Alleyne only applies to the traditional mandatory

minimum sentences mentioned previously. As long as the minimum sentence is

“mandatory,” i.e. required by law, Alleyne applies.

More importantly, the core argument that the guidelines do not produce

“mandatory” minimum sentences is itself incorrect. The guidelines minimum sentence

range is binding on trial courts, absent their articulating substantial and compelling

reasons for a departure. The dissent notes that MCL 769.34(4)(a) labels the guidelines

ranges as “recommended minimum sentence ranges,” but elsewhere the same statute

states that “the minimum sentence imposed by a court of this state . . . shall be within the

appropriate sentence range under the version of those sentencing guidelines in effect on

the date the crime was committed.” MCL 769.34(2) (emphasis added). As we have

stated many times, “shall” indicates a mandatory directive. Fradco, Inc v Dep’t of

Treasury, 495 Mich 104, 114; 845 NW2d 81 (2014). This is precisely the analysis the

United States Supreme Court engaged in in Booker, when it invalidated the federal

sentencing guidelines because it concluded they were mandatory. Booker, 543 US at

233-234 (“The Guidelines as written, however, are not advisory; they are mandatory and

binding on all judges. While subsection (a) of § 3553 of the sentencing statute lists the

Sentencing Guidelines as one factor to be considered in imposing a sentence, subsection

24
(b) directs that the court ‘shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the range’

established by the Guidelines, subject to departures in specific, limited cases.”).

Accordingly, Michigan’s guidelines produce sentences that are just as mandatory as those

at issue in Alleyne.

But, the dissent asserts, the availability of a sentence departure from the guidelines

renders them not truly mandatory. This argument must necessarily reject language from

Booker that specifically stated that the availability of a departure “does not avoid the

constitutional issue . . . .” Id. at 234; see also Blakely, 542 US at 305 n 8 (stating that that

a judge “cannot make that judgment [that compelling reasons exist to depart from the

guidelines] without finding some facts to support it beyond the bare elements of the

offense” and that “[w]hether the judicially determined facts require a sentence

enhancement or merely allow it, the verdict alone does not authorize the sentence”).

Much of the dissent’s basis for rejecting the Booker language, however, hinges on its

earlier erroneous conclusion that Alleyne does not apply to our “indeterminate”

sentencing scheme. 24 To the extent that the dissent’s rejection of this language rests on

Drohan, we see nothing in that opinion to indicate that the Drohan Court rejected or even

considered this language in reaching its decision. For these reasons, we conclude that

Michigan’s sentencing guidelines produce a “mandatory minimum” sentence to which

Alleyne applies. 25

24
See post at 44 (“[A]nything the Supreme Court has said about upward departures in a
determinate system cannot reflexively be applied to an indeterminate system.”).
25
The dissent implies that 11 federal courts of appeal have rendered decisions to the
contrary. We do not agree. First, to be clear, none of those courts has rendered a
decision on whether Michigan’s sentencing guidelines produce “mandatory minimum”

25
Because the rule from Alleyne applies, the Sixth Amendment does not permit

judicial fact-finding to score OVs to increase the floor of the sentencing guidelines range.

The right to a jury trial is “a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional

structure,” Blakely, 542 US at 306, and therefore one that cannot be restricted in this

manner.

IV. REMEDY

Having concluded that Michigan’s sentencing guidelines violate the Sixth

Amendment rule from Apprendi, as extended by Alleyne, we must determine the

appropriate remedy for the violation. We consider three options.

First, the defendant asks us to require juries to find the facts used to score all the

OVs that are not admitted or stipulated by the defendant or necessarily found by the

jury’s verdict. We reject this option. The constitutional violation can be effectively

remedied without burdening our judicial system in this manner, which could essentially

turn sentencing proceedings into mini-trials. And the United States Supreme Court in

Booker expressly rejected this remedy because of the profound disruptive effect it would

have in every case. Booker, 543 US at 248 (“It would affect decisions about whether to

sentences. Second, to the extent that those courts have held that “judicial fact-finding
does not implicate Alleyne where there is no ‘mandatory minimum’ sentence involved,”
post at 46, we agree with them. But to say that those decisions support the dissent’s
analysis simply begs the question: Do Michigan’s sentencing guidelines produce a
“mandatory minimum” sentence?

26
go to trial. It would affect the content of plea negotiations. It would alter the judge’s role

in sentencing.”). 26 We agree.

Second, we consider the remedy suggested in Judge SHAPIRO’s concurring opinion

in this case, which would render advisory only the floor of the applicable guidelines

range. Lockridge, 304 Mich App at 316 (opinion by SHAPIRO, J.). While we believe that

this is a less disruptive remedy that is fairly closely tailored to the constitutional

violation, we decline to adopt it because it would require us to significantly rewrite MCL

769.34(2), which provides in part:

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection or for a departure
from the appropriate minimum sentence range provided for under
subsection (3), the minimum sentence imposed by a court of this state for a
felony enumerated in [MCL 777.11 through MCL 777.19] committed on or
after January 1, 1999 shall be within the appropriate sentence range under
the version of those sentencing guidelines in effect on the date the crime
was committed. [Emphasis added.]

The legislative intent in this provision is plain: the Legislature wanted the applicable

guidelines minimum sentence range to be mandatory in all cases (other than those in

which a departure was appropriate) at both the top and bottom ends. Opening up only

one end of the guidelines range, even if curing the constitutional violation, would be

inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed preference for equal treatment. See Booker,

543 US at 248 (“In today’s context—a highly complex statute, interrelated provisions,

26
In asserting that in Alleyne the “narrow” remedy imposed was “that facts increasing the
minimum sentence must be submitted to the jury” and suggesting that we adopt that
remedy, the dissent is effectively proposing that we should do just this. For the reasons
given, we do not see this remedy as “narrow” given its potential for disruptive effects,
which the dissent does not acknowledge.

27
and a constitutional requirement that creates fundamental change—we cannot assume

that Congress, if faced with the statute’s invalidity in key applications, would have

preferred to apply the statute in as many other instances as possible.”) (emphasis added).

And it would require a significant rewrite of the statutory language to maintain the

mandatory nature of the guidelines ceiling but render the guidelines floor advisory only.

Accordingly, we decline to limit the remedy for the constitutional infirmity to the floor of

the guidelines range.

Third, the prosecution, in turn, asks us to Booker-ize the Michigan sentencing

guidelines, i.e., render them advisory only. We agree that this is the most appropriate

remedy. First, it is the same remedy adopted by the United States Supreme Court in

Booker. 27 Second, it requires the least judicial rewriting of the statute, as we need only

substitute the word “may” for “shall” in MCL 769.34(2) and remove the requirement in

MCL 769.34(3) that a trial court that departs from the applicable guidelines range must

articulate a substantial and compelling reason for that departure.

Like the Supreme Court in Booker, however, we conclude that although the

guidelines can no longer be mandatory, they remain a highly relevant consideration in a

trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion. Thus, we hold that trial courts “must

consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.” Booker, 543 US

at 264. Such a system, while “not the system [the legislature] enacted, nonetheless

27
Thus, to the extent that the Constitution requires a certain degree of precision to
remedy the constitutional violation, adopting the Booker remedy most carefully ensures
that we remain faithful to its dictates. Accordingly, while it is unfortunate that the dissent
finds the reasons for our adoption of this remedy unpersuasive, for this and our other
reasons stated we believe it to be the most prudent course under the circumstances.

28
continue[s] to move sentencing in [the legislature’s] preferred direction, helping to avoid

excessive sentencing disparities while maintaining flexibility sufficient to individualize

sentences where necessary.” Id. at 264-265.

Accordingly, we sever MCL 769.34(2) to the extent that it is mandatory and strike

down the requirement of a “substantial and compelling reason” to depart from the

guidelines range in MCL 769.34(3). When a defendant’s sentence is calculated using a

guidelines minimum sentence range in which OVs have been scored on the basis of facts

not admitted by the defendant or found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury, 28 the

sentencing court may exercise its discretion to depart from that guidelines range without

articulating substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. A sentence that departs

from the applicable guidelines range will be reviewed by an appellate court for

reasonableness. Booker, 543 US at 261. Resentencing will be required when a sentence

is determined to be unreasonable. Because sentencing courts will hereafter not be bound

by the applicable sentencing guidelines range, this remedy cures the Sixth Amendment

flaw in our guidelines scheme by removing the unconstitutional constraint on the court’s

discretion. Sentencing courts must, however, continue to consult the applicable

guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence. Further, sentencing

courts must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review. People v

28
Our holding today does nothing to undercut the requirement that the highest number of
points possible must be assessed for all OVs, whether using judge-found facts or not. See
MCL 777.21(1)(a) (directing that the offense variables applicable to the offense category
at issue be scored); see also, e.g., MCL 777.31(1) (directing that the “highest number of
points” possible be scored); MCL 777.32(1) (same); etc.

29
Coles, 417 Mich 523, 549; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by

People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 644; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).

V. APPLICATION TO THIS DEFENDANT

The defendant did not object to the scoring of the OVs at sentencing on

Apprendi/Alleyne grounds, so our review is for plain error affecting substantial rights.

Carines, 460 Mich at 763, 774. 29 To establish entitlement to relief under plain-error

review, the defendant must establish that an error occurred, that the error was plain, i.e.,

clear or obvious, and that the plain error affected substantial rights. Id. at 763. The third

requirement generally requires a showing of prejudice, i.e., that the error affected the

outcome of the lower court proceedings. Id. Finally, even if a defendant satisfies those

three requirements, an appellate court must exercise its discretion in deciding whether to

reverse. Id. Reversal is warranted only when the error resulted in the conviction of an

actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings independently of the defendant’s innocence. Id. at

763-764.

The defendant received a total of 70 OV points and had 35 points assessed for

prior record variables, placing him in the D-V cell of the sentencing grid for Class C

offenses. MCL 777.64. That cell calls for a minimum sentence of 43 to 86 months. The

29
The United States Supreme Court has applied plain-error review to unpreserved
Apprendi errors. See United States v Cotton, 535 US 625; 122 S Ct 1781; 152 L Ed 2d
860 (2002). It has also held that Apprendi errors are not structural errors, Washington v
Recuenco, 548 US 212; 126 S Ct 2546; 165 L Ed 2d 466 (2006), so to the extent that “our
caselaw suggests that a plain structural error satisfies the third Carines prong,” People v
Vaughn, 491 Mich 642, 666; 821 NW2d 288 (2012), it is not implicated here.

30
defendant concedes that the jury verdict necessarily established the factual basis to assess

25 points for OV 3 and 10 points for OV 6. Assuming arguendo that the facts necessary

to score OV 5 at 15 points and OV 9 and OV 10 at 10 points each were not established by

the jury’s verdict or admitted by the defendant, and yet those facts were used to increase

the defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence, violating the Sixth Amendment, 30 the

defendant nevertheless is not entitled to resentencing. Because he received an upward

departure sentence that did not rely on the minimum sentence range from the improperly

scored guidelines (and indeed, the trial court necessarily had to state on the record its

reasons for departing from that range), the defendant cannot show prejudice from any

error in scoring the OVs in violation of Alleyne. See note 31 of this opinion.

VI. APPLICATION TO OTHER DEFENDANTS

Although we have held that the defendant in this case cannot satisfy the plain-error

standard, we nevertheless must clarify how that standard is to be applied in the many

30
For the reasons explained in Part III(B) of this opinion, the right at issue is a procedural
one, i.e. the right to have a “jury determination” of all the pertinent facts used in
increasing the prescribed range of penalties, including both the minimum and the
maximum sentence. Thus, a constitutional error occurs regardless of whether the error
has a substantive effect on the defendant’s sentence. Alleyne makes this plain. Alleyne,
570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2162-2163 (“[I]f a judge were to find a fact that increased the
statutory maximum sentence, such a finding would violate the Sixth Amendment, even if
the defendant ultimately received a sentence falling within the original sentencing range
(i.e., the range applicable without that aggravating fact). . . . The essential point is that
the aggravating fact produced a higher range . . . . [T]here is no basis in principle or logic
to distinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that increase the minimum.”)
(emphasis added).

Thus, whether that error actually increases the floor of a defendant’s minimum
sentence range under the guidelines is only relevant to the question of whether the
defendant has suffered any prejudice.

31
cases that have been held in abeyance for this one. This analysis is particularly important

because, given the recent origin of Alleyne, virtually all of those cases involve challenges

that were not preserved in the trial court.

First, we consider cases in which (1) facts admitted by the defendant and (2) facts

found by the jury were sufficient to assess the minimum number of OV points necessary

for the defendant’s score to fall in the cell of the sentencing grid under which he or she

was sentenced. In those cases, because the defendant suffered no prejudice from any

error, there is no plain error and no further inquiry is required.

Second, we consider the converse: cases in which facts admitted by a defendant or

found by the jury verdict were insufficient to assess the minimum number of OV points

necessary for the defendant’s score to fall in the cell of the sentencing grid under which

he or she was sentenced. In those cases, it is clear from our previous analysis that an

unconstitutional constraint actually impaired the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right.

The question then turns to which of these defendants is entitled to relief, i.e. which can

show plain error.

We conclude that all defendants (1) who can demonstrate that their guidelines

minimum sentence range was actually constrained by the violation of the Sixth

Amendment and (2) whose sentences were not subject to an upward departure 31 can

31
In cases such as this one that involve a minimum sentence that is an upward departure,
a defendant necessarily cannot show plain error because the sentencing court has already
clearly exercised its discretion to impose a harsher sentence than allowed by the
guidelines and expressed its reasons for doing so on the record. It defies logic that the
court in those circumstances would impose a lesser sentence had it been aware that the
guidelines were merely advisory. Thus, we conclude that as a matter of law, a defendant

32
establish a threshold showing of the potential for plain error sufficient to warrant a

remand to the trial court for further inquiry. We reach this conclusion in part on the basis

of our agreement with the following analysis from United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103,

117-118 (CA 2, 2005):

Some might suppose that the only choice for an appellate court in a
case presenting a procedural error in imposing a sentence is between
disregarding the error and requiring a new sentencing. However, the choice
is not so limited. . . . . Bearing in mind the several considerations outlined
above that shape the context in which a disposition decision is to be made,
we conclude that the “further sentencing proceedings” generally
appropriate for pre-Booker/Fanfan[32] sentences pending on direct review
will be a remand to the district court, not for the purpose of a required
resentencing, but only for the more limited purpose of permitting the
sentencing judge to determine whether to resentence, now fully informed of
the new sentencing regime, and if so, to resentence. . . .

A remand for determination of whether to resentence is appropriate
in order to undertake a proper application of the plain error and harmless
error doctrines. Without knowing whether a sentencing judge would have
imposed a materially different sentence, . . . an appellate court will
normally be unable to assess the significance of any error that might have
been made. . . .

Obviously, any of the errors in the procedure for selecting the
original sentence discussed in this opinion would be harmless, and not
prejudicial under plain error analysis, if the judge decides on remand, in full
compliance with now applicable requirements, that under the post-
Booker/Fanfan regime the sentence would have been essentially the same
as originally imposed. Conversely, a district judge’s decision that the
original sentence would have differed in a nontrivial manner from that
imposed will demonstrate that the error in imposing the original sentence
was harmful and satisfies plain error analysis.

receiving a sentence that is an upward departure cannot show prejudice and therefore
cannot establish plain error.
32
Fanfan was one of the respondents in Booker.

33
In short, a sentence imposed under a mistaken perception of the
requirements of law will satisfy plain error analysis if the sentence imposed
under a correct understanding would have been materially different.
[Some emphasis added.][33]

Thus, in accordance with this analysis, in cases in which a defendant’s minimum

sentence was established by application of the sentencing guidelines in a manner that

violated the Sixth Amendment, the case should be remanded to the trial court to

determine whether that court would have imposed a materially different sentence but for

the constitutional error. If the trial court determines that the answer to that question is

yes, the court shall order resentencing. Id. at 118.

A few comments on the proper procedures for trial courts to follow on so-called

Crosby remands are in order to ensure consistency and stability. First, consistently with

Crosby, we hold that Crosby remands are warranted only in cases involving sentences

imposed on or before July 29, 2015, the date of today’s decision. Accordingly, for

33
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also adopted the Crosby
remand procedure. See United States v Ameline, 409 F3d 1073 (CA 9, 2005). Further,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia have adopted a similar remand procedure, although
modifying it so that “the appellate court retains jurisdiction throughout the limited
remand, and thus it is the appellate court that will ‘vacate the sentence upon being
notified by the judge that he would not have imposed it had he known that the guidelines
were merely advisory.’ ” United States v Coles, 365 US App DC 280, 286; 403 F3d 764
(2005), quoting United States v Paladino, 401 F3d 471, 484 (CA 7, 2005). Other circuits
have taken different approaches, creating a circuit split on the issue that more resembles a
chasm. See, e.g., Nall, United States v Booker: The Presumption of Prejudice in Plain
Error Review, 81 Chi-Kent L Rev 621, 635 (2006) (noting that “[e]ach of the twelve
circuits has taken a slightly different tack in dealing with direct review of Booker
error . . . .”). But as of yet, despite multiple petitions for certiorari asking it to address the
issue, the United States Supreme Court has declined to clarify the proper approach. See,
e.g., Rodriguez v United States, 545 US 1127; 125 S Ct 2935; 162 L Ed 2d 866 (2005).

34
defendants sentenced after our decision today, the traditional-plain error review from

Carines will apply. See id. at 116 (“In cases involving review of sentences imposed after

the date of Booker/Fanfan, we would expect to apply these prudential doctrines

[including plain-error review] in the customary manner.”).

Second, we conclude that a trial court considering a case on a Crosby remand

should first and foremost “include an opportunity for a defendant to avoid resentencing

by promptly notifying the [trial] judge that resentencing will not be sought.” Id. at 118.

If the defendant does not so notify the court, it “should obtain the views of counsel, at

least in writing, but ‘need not’ require the presence of the Defendant,” in “reaching its

decision (with or without a hearing) whether to resentence.” Id. at 120. Upon making

that decision, the trial court shall “either place on the record a decision not to resentence,

with an appropriate explanation, or vacate the sentence and, with the Defendant present,

resentence in conformity with” this opinion. Id.

Stated differently, on a Crosby remand, a trial court should first allow a defendant

an opportunity to inform the court that he or she will not seek resentencing. If

notification is not received in a timely manner, the court (1) should obtain the views of

counsel in some form, (2) may but is not required to hold a hearing on the matter, and (3)

need not have the defendant present when it decides whether to resentence the defendant,

but (4) must have the defendant present, as required by law, 34 if it decides to resentence

the defendant. Further, in determining whether the court would have imposed a

materially different sentence but for the unconstitutional constraint, the court should

34
MCR 6.425.

35
consider only the “circumstances existing at the time of the original sentence.” Id. at

117; see also United States v Ferrell, 485 F3d 687, 688 (CA 2, 2007) (holding that the

trial court’s failure to consider the circumstances as they existed at the time of the

resentencing hearing, including evidence of the defendant’s postjudgment prison

rehabilitation, did not violate the defendant’s due process rights).

VII. CONCLUSION

Because Michigan’s sentencing guidelines scheme allows judges to find by a

preponderance of the evidence facts that are then used to compel an increase in the

mandatory minimum punishment a defendant receives, it violates the Sixth Amendment

to the United States Constitution under Alleyne. We therefore reverse the judgment

below and overrule the Court of Appeals’ decision in Herron. To remedy the

constitutional flaw in the guidelines, we hold that they are advisory only.

To make a threshold showing of plain error that could require resentencing, a

defendant must demonstrate that his or her OV level was calculated using facts beyond

those found by the jury or admitted by the defendant and that a corresponding reduction

in the defendant’s OV score to account for the error would change the applicable

guidelines minimum sentence range. If a defendant makes that threshold showing and

was not sentenced to an upward departure sentence, he or she is entitled to a remand for

the trial court for that court to determine whether plain error occurred, i.e., whether the

court would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its

36
discretion. If the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence

but for the constraint, it must resentence the defendant.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part and affirm the

defendant’s sentence.

Bridget M. McCormack
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Mary Beth Kelly
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein

37
STATE OF MICHIGAN

SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 149073

RAHIM OMARKHAN LOCKRIDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter under

MCL 750.321, which carries a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years. The trial court

sentenced defendant to a term of 8 to 15 years after departing upward from the statutory

sentencing guidelines range of 43 to 86 months for defendant’s minimum sentence. The

court calculated the range by scoring various offense and prior record variables under a

preponderance of the evidence standard. Defendant appealed his sentence, asserting that

it was imposed contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v

United States, 570 US ___; 133 S Ct 2151; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013), because his

minimum sentence had been determined on the basis of facts that were not found by the

jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s sentence,

and this Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether Michigan’s “indeterminate”

sentencing system, which allows a trial court to set a criminal defendant’s minimum

sentence, i.e., his or her parole eligibility date, on the basis of factors determined by a
preponderance of the evidence, is in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. The majority holds today that our state’s sentencing system does, in

fact, violate the Sixth Amendment. Because I respectfully disagree with this holding and

do not believe our sentencing system violates the Constitution, I dissent.

I. FACTS AND HISTORY

The victim in this case, Ms. Kenyatta Lockridge, and defendant were married and

had a history of domestic violence. This history resulted in defendant’s being placed on

probation, a condition of which was that he not have contact with Ms. Lockridge or visit

her residence. Defendant, however, continued to have contact with Ms. Lockridge and

continued to live at her residence. On September 19, 2011, Ms. Lockridge accused

defendant of stealing money from her purse and an argument ensued. The argument

eventually turned violent when Ms. Lockridge punched defendant in the face twice. In

response, defendant placed his arm around Ms. Lockridge’s neck and proceeded to place

her in a choke hold. Once Ms. Lockridge stopped resisting, defendant dropped her on the

floor in front of their three daughters and left the house. Ms. Lockridge was declared

dead at the hospital, the cause of her death being asphyxiation due to neck compression.

Defendant was charged with one count of open murder, MCL 750.316, and on

May 4, 2012, the jury found defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter,

MCL 750.321. At sentencing, the trial court scored defendant’s offense variables and

prior record variables and determined that his offense variable level was 70 points and his

prior record variable level was 35 points. See footnote 10 of this opinion. These figures

placed defendant in the D-V cell of the Class C sentencing grid, which contains a

recommended minimum guidelines range of 43 to 86 months. MCL 777.16p;

2
MCL 777.64. The trial court further held that there were substantial and compelling

reasons to depart upward from the guidelines range by 10 months, ultimately sentencing

defendant to a term of 8 to 15 years. The trial court justified its departure by citing

offense variables that assertedly failed adequately to take into account the psychological

injury suffered by the victim’s children, while also referring to defendant’s willful

disregard for the conditions of his probation.

Defendant appealed his sentence in the Court of Appeals. Pending that court’s

consideration, the Supreme Court decided Alleyne v United States, which held that “any

fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the

jury.” Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2155. Defendant claimed that he had been

sentenced to a term of incarceration that had been unconstitutionally enhanced by

judicial, not by the required jury, fact-finding, and the Court of Appeals allowed him to

add an additional claim under Alleyne to his appeal. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals

denied defendant’s claim, citing People v Herron, 303 Mich App 392; 845 NW2d 533

(2013), for the proposition that our indeterminate sentencing system does not offend the

Sixth Amendment and noting that the panel was required to follow Herron. People v

Lockridge, 304 Mich App 278, 284; 849 NW2d 388 (2014) (opinion by O’CONNELL, J.);

id. at 285 (opinion by BECKERING, P.J.); id. at 311 (opinion by SHAPIRO, J.).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issue in this case is whether Michigan’s sentencing system operates in

violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution by permitting a

criminal defendant’s minimum sentence to be determined on the basis of facts not proved

3
to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. A Sixth Amendment challenge presents a

question of constitutional law that we review de novo. People v Nutt, 469 Mich 565,

573; 677 NW2d 1 (2004). Furthermore, a constitutional challenge to a statute presents a

question of law that is also reviewed de novo. McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 23;

597 NW2d 148 (1999). In analyzing constitutional challenges to statutes, this Court’s

“authority to invalidate laws is limited and must be predicated on a clearly apparent

demonstration of unconstitutionality.” People v Harris, 495 Mich 120, 134; 845 NW2d

477 (2014). We require a challenge to meet such a high burden because “[s]tatutes are

presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional

unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.” In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 404; 852

NW2d 524 (2014), citing Taylor v Gate Pharm, 468 Mich 1, 6; 658 NW2d 127 (2003).

III. ANALYSIS

A. SIXTH AMENDMENT

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation . . . . [US Const, Am VI.]

This amendment pertains to one of the most fundamental elements of our equal rule of

law-- the right to a trial by jury. 1 The fundamental purpose of the right to a trial by jury

1
“The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree in nothing else,
concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; Or if there is any difference
between them it consists in this; the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty,
the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government.” Federalist, No. 83

4
is indisputably “to prevent oppression by the Government.” Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US

145, 155; 88 S Ct 1440; 20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968), citing Singer v United States, 380 US 24,

31; 85 S Ct 783; 13 L Ed 2d 630 (1965). “Given this purpose, the essential feature of a

jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the

commonsense judgment of a group of laymen, and in the community participation and

shared responsibility that results from that group’s determination of guilt or innocence.”

Williams v Florida, 399 US 78, 99; 90 S Ct 1893; 26 L Ed 2d 446 (1970). 2 Stated

another way, the “Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to demand that a jury

find him guilty of all the elements of the crime with which he is charged . . . .” 3 United

States v Gaudin, 515 US, 506, 511; 115 S Ct 2310; 132 L Ed 2d 444 (1995).

(Alexander Hamilton) (Cooke ed, 1961), p 562.
2
Justice Joseph Story wrote that this constitutional guarantee was “generally understood
to mean . . . a trial by a jury of twelve men, impartially selected, who must unanimously
concur in the guilt of the accused before a legal conviction can be had.” 2 Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (4th ed) (Boston: Little, Brown &
Company, 1873), p 541 n 2.
3
It is important at the outset to understand that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
cannot be fully understood in isolation from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments because it is only in conjunction that “these rights indisputably
entitle a criminal defendant to ‘a jury determination that [he] is guilty of every element of
the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Apprendi v New
Jersey, 530 US 466, 476; 120 S Ct 2348; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), citing Gaudin, 515 US
at 510. This is because the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant “the right
to have the jury, rather than the judge, reach the requisite finding of ‘guilty,’ ” and the
Due Process Clause requires the government to prove each and every element of a crime
“beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sullivan v Louisiana, 508 US 275, 277; 113 S Ct 2078;
124 L Ed 2d 182 (1993); see also Patterson v New York, 432 US 197, 210; 97 S Ct 2319;
53 L Ed 2d 281 (1977); In re Winship, 397 US 358, 368; 90 S Ct 1068; 25 L Ed 2d 368
(1970). Accordingly, it is the combination of these rights that gives rise to the
constitutional right that is the subject of the instant case.

5
B. SIXTH AMENDMENT AND SENTENCING

The Sixth Amendment requires “a jury determination that [a defendant] is guilty

of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

at 510. In defining the protections afforded by this right, the United States Supreme

Court has held that any fact that constitutes an “element” of the crime must be

determined by the jury, not by the court, beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v New

Jersey, 530 US 466, 494; 120 S Ct 2348; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000). The breadth of this

right therefore depends on “the proper designation of the facts that are elements of the

crime.” Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S Ct at 2156. To ensure that the right to a jury trial

is properly safeguarded, the United States Supreme Court has set out to explain what

exactly constitutes an “element” of a crime for purposes of the Sixth Amendment, so that

the necessary elements will be submitted to the jury for its consideration and

determination. 4 In its efforts to explain what constitutes an “element” of a crime, the

Supreme Court has identified several sentencing practices that operated in violation of the

Sixth Amendment.

The Supreme Court first addressed the Sixth Amendment implications that arise

when judicially ascertained facts are used to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence in

4
At the same time, the Supreme Court has held that mere “sentencing factors” may be
ascertained by a judge using a preponderance of the evidence standard, as these factors
are not subject to the Constitution’s indictment, jury, and proof requirements. Jones v
United States, 526 US 227, 232; 119 S Ct 1215; 143 L Ed 2d 311 (1999) (“Much turns on
the determination that a fact is an element of an offense rather than a sentencing
consideration, given that elements must be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury,
and proven by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

6
McMillan v Pennsylvania, 477 US 79; 106 S Ct 2411; 91 L Ed 2d 67 (1986). McMillan

involved a Pennsylvania statute that imposed a five year “mandatory minimum” sentence

when the trial court determined by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant

“visibly possessed a firearm” during the course of committing an enumerated felony. Id.

at 81. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the Pennsylvania statute, concluding that it

neither alters the maximum penalty for the crime committed nor creates a
separate offense calling for a separate penalty; it operates solely to limit the
sentencing court’s discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already
available to it without the special finding of visible possession of a firearm.
[Id. at 87-88.]

Because the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence had not altered the

maximum penalty authorized by the jury’s verdict, the Court sustained the statute,

rejecting a Sixth Amendment challenge.

While McMillan sanctioned the use of judicial fact-finding to establish a

mandatory minimum sentence, a decade later in Jones v United States, 526 US 227, 239;

119 S Ct 1215; 143 L Ed 2d 311 (1999), the Supreme Court cautioned that the use of

such facts to increase the maximum sentence presented “grave and doubtful constitutional

questions.” (Quotation marks and citation omitted.) In Jones, the defendant was

convicted of violating a carjacking statute, which called for a 15-year maximum sentence.

18 USC 2119. This sentence, however, could be increased to 25 years if the judge

determined by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim had suffered serious

bodily injury, or to life in prison if the victim had died. 18 USC 924(c). Three tiers of

sentencing were provided under the statute. The trial court imposed the 25-year sentence

after it found that the victim had suffered serious bodily injury. Jones, 526 US at 231.

7
The Supreme Court, however, vacated the sentence in a 5-4 decision, holding that the

defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated because the judge had

determined by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim suffered “serious bodily

injury,” rather than the jury’s having determined the same question beyond a reasonable

doubt. Id. at 252.

In Jones, the jury found all the elements necessary to incarcerate the defendant for

15 years and that finding conferred on him not only the legal obligation of potentially

having to serve a sentence of that length, but also a concomitant legal right to a sentence

not exceeding that length. 5 By its finding of facts that resulted in an increase in this level

of punishment by 10 years, the trial court deprived the defendant of his legal right to a

sentence that did not exceed 15 years, i.e., his legal right to a sentence that did not exceed

the maximum term allowed by the jury’s verdict. The Court held that this type of judicial

fact-finding violated the Sixth Amendment.

The following term in Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466, the Supreme Court

elaborated on its analysis in Jones. In Apprendi, the defendant pleaded guilty to one

5
Although I describe this right throughout as a “legal” right, it would be equally accurate
to describe it as a “constitutional” right. I characterize it as the former only to render our
description consistent with that in Blakely Washington, 542 US 296, 309; 124 S Ct 2531;
159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), in which it was asserted that the Sixth Amendment prohibits a
judge from depriving a criminal defendant of his or her “legal right to a lesser sentence.”
The specific “legal right” that is the subject of this opinion is variously described, as the
context requires, as “the legal right to a sentence not to exceed that determined by the
jury”; “the legal right to a lesser sentence”; “the legal right to freedom from
incarceration”; and “the legal right to freedom from incarceration after having served the
maximum sentence.” Each of these is intended generally to describe the Sixth
Amendment right identified in the Supreme Court decisions of Apprendi and Alleyne.

8
count of possessing a weapon for an unlawful purpose, which was punishable by a term

of imprisonment between 5 and 10 years. Id. at 468-469. New Jersey, however, had a

statutory “hate crime” law that provided for an extended term of imprisonment between

10 and 20 years when the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant had acted with “racial bias.” The trial court in Apprendi found the requisite

“racial bias” by a preponderance of the evidence and consequently sentenced the

defendant to an enhanced 12-year term. Id. at 471. In yet another 5-4 decision, the

Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s practice of enhancing a criminal defendant’s

sentence on the basis of judicial fact-finding was unconstitutional. Id. at 490. The Court

held:

“[I]t is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the
assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which
a criminal defendant is exposed. . . . [S]uch facts must be established by
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Id., quoting Jones, 526 US at 252-253
(first alteration in original).]

Stated another way, judicially ascertained facts were used by the trial court to deprive the

defendant of his constitutional right to a criminal sentence not exceeding that authorized

by the jury’s verdict. The Court was not persuaded by the statute’s characterization of a

“biased purpose” as a mere “sentencing enhancement” because the Court believed instead

that this “biased purpose” constituted an element of the crime. Apprendi, 530 US at 495-

496. The Court again stated:

“[The Constitution requires that] any fact (other than a prior
correction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must . . . be
submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Id. at 476,
quoting Jones, 526 US at 243 n 6.]

9
Accordingly, any fact that “expose[s] the defendant to a greater punishment than that

authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict,” constitutes an “element” of the crime that must

be presented to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 Apprendi, 530 US at

494.

After Apprendi, which addressed the constitutional implications of judicially

ascertained facts used to increase statutory maximum sentences, the United States

Supreme Court addressed the Sixth Amendment implications of judicially ascertained

facts used to increase “mandatory minimum” sentences. Harris v United States, 536 US

545; 122 S Ct 2406; 153 L Ed 2d 524 (2002), overruled by Alleyne, 570 US at ___; 133 S

Ct at 2155. In Harris, the defendant was found guilty of violating various federal drug

and firearms laws after he sold illegal narcotics out of his pawnshop while in possession

6
Justice O’Connor wrote for four justices in dissent in Apprendi. In her view, the
majority had crafted a new constitutional rule that was “unsupported by the history and
case law it cites” and this fact alone is “reason enough to reject such a substantial
departure from our settled jurisprudence.” Apprendi, 530 US at 539 (O’Connor, J.,
dissenting). She also characterized the majority’s opinion as “a watershed change in
constitutional law,” and went on to note that the majority “casts aside our traditional
cautious approach and instead embraces a universal and seemingly bright-line rule
limiting the power of Congress and state legislatures to define criminal offenses and the
sentences that follow from convictions thereunder.” Id. at 525. Justice Breyer also wrote
in dissent on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Rehnquist, noting that the

real world of criminal justice cannot hope to meet any such ideal [as that
adopted by the majority]. It can function only with the help of procedural
compromises, particularly in respect to sentencing. And those
compromises, which are themselves necessary for the fair functioning of
the criminal justice system, preclude implementation of the procedural
model that today's decision reflects. [Id. at 555 (Breyer, J., dissenting).]

10
of an unconcealed pistol. Harris, 536 US at 550. One of the statutes under which the

defendant was convicted required an increase in the “mandatory minimum” sentence

from 5 years to 7 years when the judge determined by a preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant had “brandished” a weapon. 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A). Although the

defendant’s indictment made no mention of any “brandishing,” the trial court concluded

that he had indeed done so and sentenced him to a 7-year mandatory minimum term.

Harris, 536 US at 551.

In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s sentence,

concluding that the requirement of “brandishing” constituted a sentencing factor that

could be found by the trial court and not an “element” that could be found only by the

jury. Id. at 556. The Court also reaffirmed McMillan, holding that it was constitutional

for a trial court to find by a preponderance of the evidence facts that increased the

minimum punishment as long as the resulting punishment did not exceed the statutory

maximum. Id. at 562. The Court opined that “[o]nce the jury finds all those facts, . . . the

defendant has been convicted of the crime; the Fifth and Sixth Amendments have been

observed; and the Government has been authorized to impose any sentence below the

maximum.” Id. at 565.

Two years after Harris, the Supreme Court was presented with a Sixth

Amendment challenge to Washington’s “determinate” sentencing guidelines in Blakely v

Washington and took it as an opportunity to further clarify the meaning of a “statutory

maximum” for purposes of Apprendi. 7 Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296, 298; 124 S Ct

7
A determinate sentence is a sentence “of a specified duration.” Black’s Law Dictionary

11
2531; 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). In Blakely, the defendant had been convicted of second-

degree kidnapping, a Class B felony, and Washington law provided for a maximum

sentence of 10 years for this crime. Id. at 298-299. However, Washington’s sentencing

reform act provided a specific sentence range for a defendant’s conviction of second-

degree kidnapping with a firearm, providing a “standard range” of 49 to 53 months. The

act also permitted a court to impose a sentence longer than the standard range if the judge

found “substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.” The trial

court departed upward from the standard range by 37 months and sentenced the

defendant to 90 months’ imprisonment for the second-degree-kidnapping conviction after

finding that he had acted with “deliberate cruelty.” Id. at 300.

The state of Washington contended that its sentencing scheme did not violate

Apprendi because the defendant’s relevant “statutory maximum” was not 53 months, but

the 10-year maximum for Class B felonies. Id. at 303. The Supreme Court disagreed and

by a 5-4 majority concluded that the “statutory maximum” for Apprendi purposes is the

maximum sentence a judge may impose “solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the

jury verdict or admitted by the defendant,” which for purposes of the second-degree-

kidnapping conviction was 53 months. Id. at 304. The Court elaborated:

(10th ed), p 1569. This is in contrast to an “indeterminate” sentence, which is a sentence
“of an unspecified duration, such as one for a term of 10 to 20 years.” Id. at 1570. Thus,
a determinate system is a sentencing system in which the defendant receives a certain and
fixed sentence and is subject to serving that precise sentence. An indeterminate system is
a sentencing system in which the defendant receives a singular maximum sentence, and,
in some systems such as Michigan’s, may be released on parole before serving that
maximum.

12
In other words, the relevant “statutory maximum” is not the
maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but
the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. When a
judge inflicts punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow, the
jury has not found all the facts “which the law makes essential to the
punishment.” [Id. at 303-304 (citation omitted).]

Thus, the Court noted that the finding of “deliberate cruelty” had to be undertaken by a

jury or else admitted by the defendant, and in the absence of these circumstances a

sentence based on “deliberate cruelty” would operate in violation of the Sixth

Amendment. Id. at 308.

In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court made clear that the Sixth

Amendment does not prohibit judicial fact-finding per se, as the Court explicitly stated its

approval of systems of “indeterminate” sentencing:

By reversing the judgment below, we are not, as the State would
have it, “find[ing] determinate sentencing schemes unconstitutional.” This
case is not about whether determinate sentencing is constitutional, only
about how it can be implemented in a way that respects the Sixth
Amendment. . . .

JUSTICE O’CONNOR argues that, because determinate-sentencing
schemes involving judicial fact-finding entail less judicial discretion than
indeterminate schemes, the constitutionality of the latter implies the
constitutionality of the former. This argument is flawed on a number of
levels. First, the Sixth Amendment by its terms is not a limitation on
judicial power, but a reservation of jury power. It limits judicial power
only to the extent that the claimed judicial power infringes on the province
of the jury. Indeterminate sentencing does not do so. It increases judicial
discretion, to be sure, but not at the expense of the jury’s traditional
function of finding the facts essential to lawful imposition of the penalty.
Of course indeterminate schemes involve judicial fact-finding, in that a
judge (like a parole board) may implicitly rule on those facts he deems
important to the exercise of his sentencing discretion. But the facts do not
pertain to whether the defendant has a legal right to a lesser sentence—and
that makes all the difference insofar as judicial impingement upon the
traditional role of the jury is concerned. In a system that says the judge
may punish burglary with 10 to 40 years, every burglar knows he is risking

13
40 years in jail. In a system that punishes burglary with a 10-year sentence,
with another 30 added for use of a gun, the burglar who enters a home
unarmed is entitled to no more than a 10-year sentence—and by reason of
the Sixth Amendment the facts bearing upon that entitlement must be found
by a jury. [Id. at 308-309 (citations omitted) (some emphasis added)
(alteration in original).]

From this passage, it is apparent that the Supreme Court looked favorably on

indeterminate sentencing systems. A majority of the Court did not believe that

indeterminate sentencing offended the Sixth Amendment, even if it involved relatively

broad exercises in judicial fact-finding, because fact-finding in an indeterminate system

does not “pertain to whether the defendant has a legal right to a lesser sentence.” Id. at

309.

Following Blakely, the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge to the

“determinate” federal sentencing guidelines in United States v Booker, 543 US 220; 125

S Ct 738; 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005). In Booker, the defendant challenged the federal

guidelines as unconstitutional because they allowed for the enhancement of sentences on

the basis of facts determined by the trial court by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at

226. The Supreme Court agreed and held that the guidelines violated the rule in

Apprendi. Just as with the state of Washington’s sentencing system in Blakely, the Court

by a 5-4 majority concluded that the federal sentencing system was mandatory, that it

imposed binding requirements on sentencing courts, and again as in Blakely, that “ ‘the

jury’s verdict alone [did] not sufficiently authorize the sentence. . . . The judge acquire[d]

that authority only upon finding some additional fact.’ ” Id. at 235, quoting Blakely, 542

US at 305. The Court elaborated:

If the Guidelines as currently written could be read as merely
advisory provisions that recommended, rather than required, the selection

14
of particular sentences in response to differing sets of facts, their use would
not implicate the Sixth Amendment. We have never doubted the authority
of a judge to exercise broad discretion in imposing a sentence within a
statutory range. . . . [W]hen a trial judge exercises his discretion to select a
specific sentence within a defined range, the defendant has no right to a
jury determination of the facts that the judge deems relevant. [Booker 543
US at 233.]

However, the determinate federal guidelines were not advisory, but mandatory and

binding, and therefore were unconstitutional. Once a trial court ascertained a particular

aggravating fact, it was required to increase a defendant’s sentence accordingly and this

resulted in a deprivation of the “legal right to a lesser [jury-determined] sentence.” Id.

C. MICHIGAN’S SENTENCING GUIDELINES

After Blakely and Booker were decided, several defendants contended that

Michigan’s indeterminate sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment.

Specifically, they argued that the use of judicially ascertained facts to calculate

Michigan’s indeterminate sentencing guidelines increases the level of permitted

punishments beyond the range authorized by the jury’s verdict and that the Sixth

Amendment as interpreted by Blakely is therefore violated. This argument was squarely

rejected by this Court in People v Drohan, 475 Mich at 140, 164; 715 NW2d 778 (2006).

To fully understand this Court’s prior analysis regarding Sixth Amendment

challenges to our sentencing system, it is necessary to examine how this system

operates. 8 It is a sentencing system fundamentally different from the determinate

8
Michigan initially had a purely indeterminate sentencing system, in which the judge
possessed unfettered judgment to sentence a defendant anywhere between no jail time
and imprisonment in the amount of the statutory maximum. Over time, this Court came
to disfavor the sentencing disparities that resulted from this type of unrestricted
judgment. To narrow these disparities, this Court enacted judicial sentencing guidelines

15
sentencing systems at issue in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker because in Michigan the

great majority of all convicted criminals are given indeterminate sentences. 9 As this

Court has pertinently explained:

in 1984 by administrative order. Administrative Order No. 1984-1, 418 Mich lxxx
(1984); Administrative Order No. 1985-2, 420 Mich lxii (1985). Under these judicial
guidelines, a recommended minimum sentence range was produced by scoring a
defendant’s prior record variables and offense variables; once a recommended minimum
sentence range was calculated in this manner, the judge could only depart outside this
range if he or she articulated specific reasons for the departure on the record. People v
Broden, 428 Mich 343, 352; 408 NW2d 789 (1987). A second edition of the judicial
guidelines was issued in 1988, and application of these modified guidelines was required
for certain offenses, although the actual imposition of minimum sentences within the
guidelines ranges themselves was not also required. Michigan Sentencing Guidelines (2d
ed) (1988), p 7. The purpose of the guidelines was to provide sentencing norms, to
promote judicial consistency, and to minimize sentencing disparities without altogether
eliminating the court’s exercise of judgment. People v Coles, 417 Mich 523; 339 NW2d
440 (1983). The citizens of this state were apparently still dissatisfied with remaining
sentencing disparities, and the Legislature enacted the statutory guidelines in 1998.
Similarly to the judicial guidelines, the statutory guidelines structured and constrained the
exercise of judgment by the trial court without entirely eliminating it. Unlike the judicial
guidelines, however, the statutory guidelines generally required trial courts to sentence
within the guidelines, and they could not depart from the prescribed range without stating
“substantial and compelling” reasons for the specific departure on the record. MCL
769.34(3).
9
The majority agrees that the rules of Apprendi and Alleyne do not apply to
“indeterminate” sentencing schemes, yet it applies these rules to Michigan’s
indeterminate sentencing system. To justify this application, the majority holds that
“Michigan’s sentencing scheme is not ‘indeterminate’ as that term has been used by the
United States Supreme Court[.]” To hold thusly, the majority relies on the dissent of
Justice O’Connor in Blakely and two law review articles. These sources suggest that the
Supreme Court’s genuine intention in referring to “indeterminate” sentencing was to
discuss indeterminate sentencing systems in which there is an “absence of mandatory
constraints placed on a court’s discretion when sentencing a defendant,” and because
Michigan has mandatory constraints, ours is not an “indeterminate” system in the way
that term is used by the United States Supreme Court. I disagree. Michigan has an
“indeterminate” sentencing system in which the jury finds all facts necessary for the
imposition of punishment, Const 1963, art 4, § 45; Drohan, 475 Mich at 163, and

16
consequently the rule of Apprendi is inapplicable. The majority’s is an invented
distinction that Apprendi is applicable only to some asserted subcategory of
“indeterminate” sentencing systems-- a subcategory whose very obviousness one might
have thought would have compelled a more nuanced analysis by the Court had it
genuinely intended some number of “indeterminate” systems to be treated distinctively
from other “indeterminate” systems-- and is therefore a distinction that should hardly
serve as a basis for upending the entire sentencing system of our state on the grounds of a
supposed lack of constitutionality. In Blakely, the United States Supreme Court spoke in
general terms concerning indeterminate sentencing systems and held that “indeterminate”
systems do not offend the Sixth Amendment. Blakely, 542 US at 308-309. Any assertion
that the Court intended something different and more nuanced is entirely speculative, as
evidenced by the fact that the majority cites no source of binding authority to support its
conclusion in the face of inhospitably explicit statements by the Court.

Furthermore, the majority’s artificial distinction between types of indeterminate
systems holds little weight when one examines the specific statements the United States
Supreme Court has made regarding indeterminate sentencing. The Court stated, for
example, in Blakely:

[T]he Sixth Amendment by its terms is . . . a reservation of jury power. It
limits judicial power only to the extent that the claimed judicial power
infringes on the province of the jury. Indeterminate sentencing does not do
so. It increases judicial discretion, to be sure, but not at the expense of the
jury’s traditional function of finding facts essential to lawful imposition of
the penalty. [Id. (emphasis added).]

Under either subcategory of indeterminate sentencing identified by the majority, any
judicial discretion at sentencing is not at the “expense of the jury’s traditional function of
finding facts essential to the lawful imposition of the penalty.” Rather, the jury is
responsible for finding all facts essential to authorize the statutory maximum penalty.
Whether the Legislature chooses to allow judicial discretion with respect to the selection
of a parole eligibility date after the jury has exercised this authority is irrelevant. In
noting that indeterminate sentencing schemes do not offend the Sixth Amendment, the
United States Supreme Court focused only on whether the judicial power infringes the
jury’s authority to find facts essential to authorize the maximum penalty. The extent of
judicial discretion after the jury finds those facts is never mentioned by the Court. It is
clear that the Court in Blakely was referring generally to indeterminate sentencing as it
showed no concern with the amount of discretion given to courts as long as that
discretion did not enable the judge to interfere with the prerogative of the jury. There is

17
An indeterminate sentence is one of an unspecified duration, such as
one for a term of 10 to 20 years. In other words, while a defendant may
serve a sentence of up to 20 years, the defendant may be released from
prison at the discretion of the parole board at any time after the defendant
serves the ten-year minimum. [Drohan, 475 Mich at 153 n 10 (quotation
marks and citations omitted).]

A determinate sentence, on the other hand, is

[a] sentence for a fixed length of time rather than an unspecified duration.
Such a sentence can either be for a fixed term from which the trial court
cannot deviate . . . or can be imposed by the trial court within a certain
range. [Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original).]

Under Michigan’s indeterminate sentencing guidelines, a criminal defendant’s maximum

sentence is prescribed by statute, and upon a guilty verdict the defendant is made subject

to serving this maximum sentence. Drohan, 475 Mich at 163. That is, the jury’s guilty

verdict authorizes punishment of a criminal defendant to the maximum extent allowed by

the statute under which he or she has been convicted. At sentencing, the judge’s exercise

of judgment is limited solely to selecting a minimum sentence, i.e., a sentence

establishing the defendant’s earliest parole eligibility date from within a “recommended

thus no indication that the Court referred to indeterminate sentencing in either a casual or
imprecise manner.

As for the majority’s reliance on Justice O’Connor’s Blakely dissent, she asserted
that as a result of Blakely al

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2822014. Public record. Not legal advice.