Criminal procedure: sentencing; guidelines for sentencing individuals aged 18 to 21 to life without parole; provide for. Amends 1927 PA 175 (MCL 760.1 - 777.69) by adding sec. 25b to ch. IX.
HB4506 would create a new sentencing procedure in Michigan for defendants who were 18, 19, or 20 years old when they committed certain serious offenses. For covered cases, a prosecutor could move for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, including for some homicide-related offenses, certain drug and firearm offenses, and other crimes where state law already expressly denies parole eligibility. The bill applies both to future convictions and to some people already convicted before the bill’s effective date.
If the prosecutor files the motion on time, the court must hold a sentencing hearing and consider the factors identified in Miller v. Alabama, along with other relevant information such as the defendant’s incarceration record. The court must state on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances it considered. Victims would retain the right to make oral impact statements at sentencing or resentencing under the crime victims’ rights law. If the court does not impose life without parole, the bill requires a very long term-of-years sentence: a maximum term of at least 80 years and a minimum term between 35 and 50 years, with consecutive sentencing required for offenses arising from the same transaction or occurrence.
The bill would also set deadlines for prosecutors to seek life without parole, require the defendant to respond within 14 days, and establish a priority order for resentencing hearings, giving first priority to cases where the defendant has already served 25 or more years. Any defendant resentenced under the bill would receive credit for time already served. In effect, the bill would expand and formalize Michigan’s sentencing rules for young adult offenders in the most serious cases, while preserving a structured judicial hearing process.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears mixed and closely divided. The bill was reported from committee 7-4 without amendment, but it was later defeated on the House floor by narrow margins in two third-reading votes. That pattern suggests support for the bill’s tough-on-crime approach among some lawmakers, but not enough consensus for passage.
The main point of contention is the policy choice to allow life without parole for defendants who were under 21 at the time of the offense. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to ensure severe punishment for the most serious crimes and to give prosecutors another sentencing tool, while opponents likely objected to extending the harshest penalty to young adults and to the bill’s retroactive reach. The long mandatory minimums, consecutive sentencing requirement, and application to already-convicted defendants are also likely to have been controversial.
HB4506 would amend the Michigan Code of Criminal Procedure by adding a new section governing sentencing for certain offenders who were 18 to 20 years old at the time of the offense. It would authorize prosecutorial motions for life without parole in specified serious cases, require sentencing hearings and findings, preserve victim impact rights, and mandate alternative long term-of-years sentences when life without parole is not imposed. It would also affect resentencing procedures and priorities for existing cases, thereby changing how courts, prosecutors, defendants, and victims participate in sentencing for these offenses.
The bill’s sentiment appears sharply divided and ultimately unfavorable in the House, where it was defeated on third reading after a committee recommendation to report it without amendment. The committee vote suggests some support for the proposal, but the floor defeats by narrow margins indicate substantial opposition or insufficient support. Overall, the discussion history points to a contentious bill with no clear bipartisan consensus.
The central controversy is whether defendants aged 18 to 20 should be eligible for life without parole, especially given modern sentencing concerns about young adult development and proportional punishment. Opponents likely focused on the bill’s harshness, its retroactive application to people already convicted, and the very long mandatory fallback sentences. Supporters likely emphasized accountability for the most serious violent crimes and the need for prosecutorial discretion in homicide and other parole-ineligible offenses. The bill’s treatment of resentencing priorities and consecutive sentencing also likely drew concern from those worried about fairness and prison-term severity.