In the landmark case of People of the State of Michigan v. Alexander Jeremy Steanhouse, the Supreme Court of Michigan addressed critical issues arising from its prior decision in People v. Lockridge. The 2017 judgment consolidated multiple dockets (Nos. 152671, 152849, 152871-152873, 152946-152948) to reaffirm and clarify the status of Michigan's sentencing guidelines in light of constitutional scrutiny. Central to this case are the principles surrounding mandatory sentencing guidelines, the Sixth Amendment implications, and the proper standard for appellate review of sentencing decisions.

The parties involved include the State of Michigan, represented by Attorney General Bill Schuette and other state officials, and the defendants Alexander Jeremy Steanhouse and Mohammad Masroor, each appointed with state appellate defenders and criminal defense attorneys. The case delves deep into the constitutionality of Michigan's sentencing guidelines and seeks to resolve residual issues left unresolved by the Lockridge decision.

The Supreme Court of Michigan reaffirmed its previous holding that Michigan's sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, as per the constitutional imperatives highlighted in Lockridge. The court upheld the principle of proportionality from People v. Milbourn, determining that appellate review should focus on whether the trial court abused its discretion by violating this principle.

Key decisions include:

• Maintaining that legislative sentencing guidelines are advisory in all applications.
• Affirming that appellate review should assess the proportionality of sentences relative to the offense and offender, rather than adhering to a federal "reasonableness" standard.
• Rejecting the importation of federal sentencing review approaches into Michigan jurisprudence.
• Reversing portions of the Court of Appeals' judgments that mandated Crosby remands for further sentencing proceedings.

The court also addressed the procedural aspects of sentencing reviews post-Lockridge, steering the appellate system back to evaluating sentences based on proportionality without mandating remands unless judicial discretion was abused.

The judgment heavily references several pivotal cases that have shaped Michigan's sentencing jurisprudence:

• People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015): This case held that Michigan's mandatory sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment by requiring judicial fact-finding beyond what was admitted by the defendant or found by the jury, thus rendering the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory.
• United States v. Alleyne, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013): The U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the precedent set in Apprendi v. New Jersey, holding that 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.
• People v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (C.A. 2, 2005): This case established the procedure for remanding sentencing decisions for further review when mandatory guidelines constraining judicial discretion were found unconstitutional.
• Which other cases: People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630, 461 N.W.2d 1 (1990); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); and People v. Babcock, 469 Mich. 247, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003).

These cases collectively underscore the tension between legislative sentencing frameworks and constitutional protections afforded to defendants, particularly focusing on the sanctity of jury findings and the prohibition against excessive judicial discretion.

The court's reasoning pivots on reconciling Michigan's sentencing guidelines with constitutional mandates. At the heart of the judgment is the affirmation of the principle of proportionality, which requires that sentences be commensurate with the seriousness of the offense and the background of the offender, as established in People v. Milbourn.

By declaring the guidelines advisory, the court ensures that sentencing remains flexible and constitutionally compliant, avoiding the pitfalls of mandatory guidelines that previously infringed upon defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. The decision to decline adopting federal standards (18 USC 3553(a)) into Michigan law further emphasizes the court's dedication to maintaining a jurisprudential identity tailored to the state's legal landscape.

Additionally, the court carefully navigates the remedial aspects post-Lockridge, determining that Crosby remands are unnecessary and overly burdensome in cases involving upward departures from sentencing ranges. Instead, appellate courts are directed to focus on the proportionality of sentences without being tethered to rigid remand procedures.

The implications of this judgment are multifaceted:

• Future Sentencing: Trial courts in Michigan will now exercise more discretion in sentencing, guided by the principle of proportionality rather than being confined to mandatory guidelines. This shift aims to foster more individualized and fair sentencing practices.
• Appellate Review: Appellate courts will concentrate on whether sentences meet the proportionality standard, potentially reducing the number of remands and simplifying the appellate process.
• Legislative Response: The Michigan Legislature may be prompted to revisit and potentially revise sentencing statutes to align more closely with constitutional requirements, ensuring clearer guidelines that respect judicial discretion within constitutional bounds.
• Legal Clarity: By rejecting federal "reasonableness" standards, Michigan's sentencing framework retains its unique structure, providing clarity and consistency within the state's judicial system.

Overall, the judgment promotes a balance between legislative intent in establishing sentencing guidelines and the constitutional imperatives that protect defendant rights, aiming for a more equitable and constitutionally sound sentencing regime.

Mandatory vs. Advisory Sentencing Guidelines

Mandatory Guidelines: These are strict rules that judges must follow when determining a defendant's sentence. Failure to adhere can lead to appeals and potential penalties for the judge.
Advisory Guidelines: These guidelines serve as recommendations. Judges have the discretion to deviate from them based on the specifics of the case without facing penalties.

Sixth Amendment Implications

The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to a fair trial, including the right to have their sentence determined by a jury based solely on the evidence presented. Mandatory guidelines that require judges to incorporate additional facts beyond what the jury has determined can infringe upon this right.

Principle of Proportionality

This legal principle mandates that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the severity of the offense and the culpability of the offender. It seeks to prevent overly harsh or lenient sentences that do not align with the nature of the crime.

Crosby Remand

Derived from United States v. Crosby, a Crosby Remand is a process where a case is sent back to the trial court for sentencing review if it's believed that mandatory guidelines improperly influenced the sentence.

Appellate Review Standards

Abuse of Discretion: An appellate court determining if the trial judge made a clear error in judgment.
Reasonableness Review: Assessing whether a sentence falls within a range that is fair and justified, given the circumstances.

The People v. Steanhouse decision stands as a pivotal reaffirmation of Michigan's commitment to ensuring that sentencing guidelines do not encroach upon constitutional protections. By maintaining the advisory nature of sentencing guidelines and emphasizing the principle of proportionality, the court strikes a balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandate. This judgment not only clarifies the legal landscape post-Lockridge but also sets a precedent for future sentencing deliberations, ensuring that justice remains both fair and tailored to individual circumstances.

Moving forward, Michigan's judicial system is poised to embrace a more nuanced approach to sentencing—one that honors the letter and spirit of the law while safeguarding the fundamental rights of those within its purview. The enduring impact of this case will likely resonate in the realms of criminal justice and appellate review, fostering a more equitable and constitutionally aligned legal framework.