Case Name: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ihab MASALMANI, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2019-04-05
Citations: 924 N.W.2d 585
Docket Number: SC: 154773; 154764; 154764; COA: 325662
Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ihab MASALMANI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 924
Pages: 585–585

Head Matter:
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ihab MASALMANI, Defendant-Appellant.
SC: 154773
154764
154764
COA: 325662
Supreme Court of Michigan.
April 5, 2019
Order

Opinion:
By order of May 2, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Skinner (Docket No. 152448 ) and People v Hyatt (Docket No. 153081 ). On order of the Court, the cases having been decided on June 20, 2018, 502 Mich 89, 917 N.W.2d 292 (2018), the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue whether, in exercising its discretion to impose a sentence of life without parole (LWOP), the trial court properly considered the "factors listed in Miller v Alabama , [567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407] (2012)" as potentially mitigating circumstances. MCL 769.25(6). See also Skinner , 502 Mich at 113-116, 917 N.W.2d 292. In particular, the parties shall address: (1) which party, if any, bears the burden of proof of showing that a Miller factor does or does not suggest a LWOP sentence; (2) whether the sentencing court gave proper consideration to the defendant's "chronological age and its hallmark features," Miller , 567 U.S. at 477-478, 132 S.Ct. 2455, by focusing on his proximity to the bright line age of 18 rather than his individual characteristics; and (3) whether the court properly considered the defendant's family and home environment, which the court characterized as "terrible," and the lack of available treatment programs in the Department of Corrections as weighing against his potential for rehabilitation. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1). The motion to remand is DENIED.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.