By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
Following the Michigan Supreme Court decisions that banned automatic life without parole sentences for defendants under the age of 21, counties have been scrambling to start the resentencing process.
Decisions from People v. Taylor and People v. Czarnecki in April 2025 require courts to review past sentences for mitigating factors of youth while prosecutors can seek to keep a life without parole sentence or one with a defined term of years.
As part of those rulings, the court also said People v. Parks, decided in 2022, which extended the prohibition on automatic juvenile life without parole to 18-year-olds, was retroactive.
The decisions created directives for county prosecutors to review the cases for resentencing. Those involving 18-year-olds needed resentencing motions by Dec. 29, 2025, and cases involving 19- and 20-year-olds needed motions by Jan. 5.
Chris Becker, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and Kent County prosecutor, said it wasn’t an issue for the offices to meet the deadline, but counties tried to work ahead of the decision from the Supreme Court to determine the cases that would be affected because of the quick turnaround.
Still, Becker said the 582 cases statewide entitled to review may be more massive than the state can handle.
Becker said a key problem is the Michigan State Appellate Defender’s Office doesn’t have the capacity to address all the cases, with 390 cases still needing counsel because the office doesn’t have enough defense attorneys to assign. He said this could severely lengthen the process to get cases resentenced.
Becker said if prosecutors are filing motions now, he doesn’t know when the hearings will be scheduled.
He worried about the drawn-out process for many of the cases the defense is not prioritizing, which are the older cases, because more recent cases would still see sentences of 25 to 30 years.
He said his prosecutor’s office has been counseling the victims and victims’ families on the cases being reviewed, but with no immediate deadlines, there is
prolonged worry for those affected.
Becker called the resentencing guidelines “uncharted territory” for counties.in how the counties are supposed to . He said some of his motions for resentencing have been sent back as there “wasn’t enough information,” and the office subsequently lost their chance for staying a life without parole sentence.
The consequence for not hitting the deadline or not providing enough information in the motions is the sentence is moved to a term of years without a chance to keep a life without parole sentence, he said.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy has filed 410 motions for resentencing, but the numbers are skewed because she’s already resentenced around 140 cases for 17-year-olds following the 2012 decision in the same vein but for minors. Worthy said her office is three-quarters of the way through resentencing 18-year-olds in her county. She said the real dent in the filings are the 19 and 20-year-olds.
Worthy said the county is overwhelmingly recommending a term of years rather than a continuation of the life sentences, with around 90% of the motions looking for lesser sentencing.
The deadline put a strain on the process, Worthy said. She wanted her office to be more deliberate and thoughtful about its decisions, especially when there still aren’t defense attorneys for all the cases.
“We make the most insightful and thoughtful decision that we can based on what we have, but we cannot do it in a vacuum,” Worthy said. “We have to have documents, we have to find the families, the defendants have to have lawyers, and so there are other impediments outside of us.”
The office was also waiting for the Department of Corrections to issue guidance and provide incarcerated individuals’ history files, which led to a weeks-long delay in reviewing the specifics of certain cases.
Worthy started lobbying for both funding and a longer deadline the minute the decisions came down in April. She said although they had partners in the Legislature trying to aid the offices in the process, they just couldn’t get it across the finish line.
HB 4506, HB 4507 and HB 4508, the bills meant to extend this deadline by a year from the effective date of the legislation, were reported by the House Judiciary Committee in June but faced pushback from House Democrats on the grounds of opposing long year terms instead of life, which they said was swapping one cruel punishment for another.
Instead, Worthy said she and her staff didn’t get a break over the holidays as they tried to file by the deadline. She didn’t want to just file everyone for a resentencing of their life without parole, calling that “neglectful and irresponsible.”
Worthy never understood why the State Appellate Defender Office disagreed with their need for an easier deadline, thinking it would also benefit their clients to have more information on the cases.
SADO told Gongwer News Service that the legislation was too broad a remedy “for such a narrow issue affecting only a few counties,” focused on getting the resentencing process rolling.
“These cases have already been pending for years, and further delay would prolong uncertainty for people who were sentenced as children and are entitled to timely, constitutional resentencing,” SADO said in a statement.
Wayne County did offer the office more funding to expand its appellate unit and recreate homicide files that were destroyed in a previous administration, Worthy said.
The sticking point for Worthy is that this is far from over. The cases still must be considered in court. Worthy said she expects a long timeline, as her office is still waiting on five or six decisions from the 17-year-old lifer cases they began in 2012.
“Even though we filed and even though we’ve made decisions in a lot of cases, it doesn’t mean the person’s going to get out tomorrow because it still has to be pronounced by a judge and get on their calendar,” Worthy said. “There’s a lot of moving parts. We make the initial decisions, but we do not make the final decisions. We make recommendations to the court. We let them know what our intentions are, but we still have to wait on the court.”
Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido said there are 18 offenders in the county entitled to resentencing and three offenders’ cases that are still on direct appeal.
Lucido said in a statement to Gongwer News Service that the office “conducted a careful, case-by-case review of each offender, weighing public safety and the interests of justice.”
“These reviews were neither quick nor routine,” Lucido said. “We examined thousands of pages of records, assessed risks to public safety, and met with victims’ families. When the facts and danger to the public warranted it, we sought life without parole.”
Lucido is also concerned about the toll on victims’ families by reopening the cases, saying they “have already endured unimaginable loss, and the reopening of these cases risks compounding their trauma by forcing them to relive the most painful moments of their lives.”
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald is seeking new sentences in 79 out of 95 reviewed cases. Her office filed motions in 16 cases for more information.
“The Supreme Court’s expedited timeline for reviewing these cases created challenges for everyone involved, especially for victims who were assured these cases had been settled many years ago,” McDonald said in a statement issued earlier this month. “We believe our recommendations accurately reflect our best
understanding of each case. However, the order to review dozens of closed cases, some decades old, created a challenging process to ensure victims received justice.”
Monroe County has two cases entitled to resentencing from the same incident in 1995 where two 18-year-olds were convicted of “executing a man.” The two have a new court date set for Jan. 30.
The county is asking the court to keep the sentences in place.
Gongwer News Service
Following the Michigan Supreme Court decisions that banned automatic life without parole sentences for defendants under the age of 21, counties have been scrambling to start the resentencing process.
Decisions from People v. Taylor and People v. Czarnecki in April 2025 require courts to review past sentences for mitigating factors of youth while prosecutors can seek to keep a life without parole sentence or one with a defined term of years.
As part of those rulings, the court also said People v. Parks, decided in 2022, which extended the prohibition on automatic juvenile life without parole to 18-year-olds, was retroactive.
The decisions created directives for county prosecutors to review the cases for resentencing. Those involving 18-year-olds needed resentencing motions by Dec. 29, 2025, and cases involving 19- and 20-year-olds needed motions by Jan. 5.
Chris Becker, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and Kent County prosecutor, said it wasn’t an issue for the offices to meet the deadline, but counties tried to work ahead of the decision from the Supreme Court to determine the cases that would be affected because of the quick turnaround.
Still, Becker said the 582 cases statewide entitled to review may be more massive than the state can handle.
Becker said a key problem is the Michigan State Appellate Defender’s Office doesn’t have the capacity to address all the cases, with 390 cases still needing counsel because the office doesn’t have enough defense attorneys to assign. He said this could severely lengthen the process to get cases resentenced.
Becker said if prosecutors are filing motions now, he doesn’t know when the hearings will be scheduled.
He worried about the drawn-out process for many of the cases the defense is not prioritizing, which are the older cases, because more recent cases would still see sentences of 25 to 30 years.
He said his prosecutor’s office has been counseling the victims and victims’ families on the cases being reviewed, but with no immediate deadlines, there is
prolonged worry for those affected.
Becker called the resentencing guidelines “uncharted territory” for counties.in how the counties are supposed to . He said some of his motions for resentencing have been sent back as there “wasn’t enough information,” and the office subsequently lost their chance for staying a life without parole sentence.
The consequence for not hitting the deadline or not providing enough information in the motions is the sentence is moved to a term of years without a chance to keep a life without parole sentence, he said.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy has filed 410 motions for resentencing, but the numbers are skewed because she’s already resentenced around 140 cases for 17-year-olds following the 2012 decision in the same vein but for minors. Worthy said her office is three-quarters of the way through resentencing 18-year-olds in her county. She said the real dent in the filings are the 19 and 20-year-olds.
Worthy said the county is overwhelmingly recommending a term of years rather than a continuation of the life sentences, with around 90% of the motions looking for lesser sentencing.
The deadline put a strain on the process, Worthy said. She wanted her office to be more deliberate and thoughtful about its decisions, especially when there still aren’t defense attorneys for all the cases.
“We make the most insightful and thoughtful decision that we can based on what we have, but we cannot do it in a vacuum,” Worthy said. “We have to have documents, we have to find the families, the defendants have to have lawyers, and so there are other impediments outside of us.”
The office was also waiting for the Department of Corrections to issue guidance and provide incarcerated individuals’ history files, which led to a weeks-long delay in reviewing the specifics of certain cases.
Worthy started lobbying for both funding and a longer deadline the minute the decisions came down in April. She said although they had partners in the Legislature trying to aid the offices in the process, they just couldn’t get it across the finish line.
HB 4506, HB 4507 and HB 4508, the bills meant to extend this deadline by a year from the effective date of the legislation, were reported by the House Judiciary Committee in June but faced pushback from House Democrats on the grounds of opposing long year terms instead of life, which they said was swapping one cruel punishment for another.
Instead, Worthy said she and her staff didn’t get a break over the holidays as they tried to file by the deadline. She didn’t want to just file everyone for a resentencing of their life without parole, calling that “neglectful and irresponsible.”
Worthy never understood why the State Appellate Defender Office disagreed with their need for an easier deadline, thinking it would also benefit their clients to have more information on the cases.
SADO told Gongwer News Service that the legislation was too broad a remedy “for such a narrow issue affecting only a few counties,” focused on getting the resentencing process rolling.
“These cases have already been pending for years, and further delay would prolong uncertainty for people who were sentenced as children and are entitled to timely, constitutional resentencing,” SADO said in a statement.
Wayne County did offer the office more funding to expand its appellate unit and recreate homicide files that were destroyed in a previous administration, Worthy said.
The sticking point for Worthy is that this is far from over. The cases still must be considered in court. Worthy said she expects a long timeline, as her office is still waiting on five or six decisions from the 17-year-old lifer cases they began in 2012.
“Even though we filed and even though we’ve made decisions in a lot of cases, it doesn’t mean the person’s going to get out tomorrow because it still has to be pronounced by a judge and get on their calendar,” Worthy said. “There’s a lot of moving parts. We make the initial decisions, but we do not make the final decisions. We make recommendations to the court. We let them know what our intentions are, but we still have to wait on the court.”
Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido said there are 18 offenders in the county entitled to resentencing and three offenders’ cases that are still on direct appeal.
Lucido said in a statement to Gongwer News Service that the office “conducted a careful, case-by-case review of each offender, weighing public safety and the interests of justice.”
“These reviews were neither quick nor routine,” Lucido said. “We examined thousands of pages of records, assessed risks to public safety, and met with victims’ families. When the facts and danger to the public warranted it, we sought life without parole.”
Lucido is also concerned about the toll on victims’ families by reopening the cases, saying they “have already endured unimaginable loss, and the reopening of these cases risks compounding their trauma by forcing them to relive the most painful moments of their lives.”
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald is seeking new sentences in 79 out of 95 reviewed cases. Her office filed motions in 16 cases for more information.
“The Supreme Court’s expedited timeline for reviewing these cases created challenges for everyone involved, especially for victims who were assured these cases had been settled many years ago,” McDonald said in a statement issued earlier this month. “We believe our recommendations accurately reflect our best
understanding of each case. However, the order to review dozens of closed cases, some decades old, created a challenging process to ensure victims received justice.”
Monroe County has two cases entitled to resentencing from the same incident in 1995 where two 18-year-olds were convicted of “executing a man.” The two have a new court date set for Jan. 30.
The county is asking the court to keep the sentences in place.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
