THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TO EFFECT THE SAME RESULT AS THE 'SECOND LOOK' LEGISLATION SEEKS
- Kevin L. Tower

- Apr 23
- 3 min read
#SecondLookLegislation #JudicialReform #MichiganJustice #ResentencingMatters #CompassionateJustice #CriminalJusticeReform #MDOC #SupremeCourtAuthority #DignityInJustice #MercyInSentencing #RehabilitationMatters #DownwardDeparture #SentencingReform #FairSentencing #JusticeWithCompassion


The Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Department of Corrections, have the authority to allow Judges to resentence criminal defendants after they are sent to prison. Regularly, the MDOC sends referrals to Circuit Court Judges to review sentences that contain administrative errors. Because, the MDOC overseas the presentence investigation reports that Judges use to determine a defendants sentence, the MDOC has the ability to send referrals to judges, when upon further review, the original recommendation of the presentence investigator, does not accurately reflect the true circumstances of the prisoner after a period of incarceration and programming, and in the professional judgement of the presentence investigator, the court should consider a lessor sentence.
A prosecutor has wide latitude in whether to charge a person with a crime or not and if so, what charges should be filed and what sentence should be recommended. Even after a person is sentenced and sent to prison, a prosecutor still possess great discretion and has the default ability to motion a court to modify a persons conviction or sentence.
The Court on its own authority, when made aware of an error in a case, can correct the matter and resentence the defendant.
The MDOC, should have the ability to update the Court on the progress of any Defendant. If the Court determines that the current sentence does not accurately reflect the true circumstances of the prisoner, and the Court believes a lessor sentence is appropriate, the Court on its own authority can resentence the defendant.
Because, this broad authority of the Court is not clearly defined in case law, it would benefit the Circuit Courts, if the Michigan Supreme Court were to clarify this in an administrative order to the lower courts and the State Court Administer.
Obviously, this would require a standard petition form for use by the MDOC to submit to the court, and the court would give notice to the prosecution and victim, if the Court determines a lessor sentence is appropriate.
In this administrative order the Michigan Supreme Court could layout the circumstances a court could resentence a prisoner on their own authority and also provide the courts with the ability to provide downward departures to prisoners with mental or neurological disabilities and prisoners with mercy cases, where they may be in the final years of their lives do to certain conditions.
The only thing this would allow a court to do, is take a second look at a prisoner upon request by the MDOC and exercise the same authority they possessed in sentencing any defendant. Given this, a court has great deference in what sentence to impose, and clearly has no less authority than a prosecutor has in what sentence to recommend. Clearly, a judge may look at a prisoner who has become rehabilitated, much different than they saw the prisoner at the original sentencing. Likewise, a court at sentencing can on its own authority consider downward departures to prisoners with mental or neurological disabilities and also extend mercy to a prisoner with stage four cancer.
The Governor or Attorney General could petition the Michigan Supreme Court to issue an administrative order of the court, outlining when a circuit court can on its own authority resentence a defendant upon petition by the MDOC.






Comments