Court Opinion

ID: 9885263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 06:06:28.202046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:00.208317
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                       UNPUBLISHED
                                                                        October 5, 2023
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v                                                                      No. 344130
                                                                        Jackson Circuit Court
 ANTHONY JOSEPH GELIA,                                                  LC No. 16-005361-FC

                 Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and SHAPIRO and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

                                            ON REMAND

        Defendant was 19 years old when he murdered a young mother. In Part II.B of our prior
opinion, we considered defendant’s unpreserved claim that his mandatory sentence of life in prison
without the possibility of parole (LWOP) violated due process, the federal prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment, and the state prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment. We held
that defendant had “not demonstrated entitlement to relief on this issue,” and we declined “to
accept [his] invitation to extend the holding in Miller [v Alabama, 567 US 460, 465; 132 S Ct
2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012)],” to 19-year-olds. People v Gelia, unpublished per curiam opinion
of the Court of Appeals, issued Jan. 21, 2020 (Docket No. 344130), slip op at 8.

        This matter returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court with directions to reconsider
Part II.B “in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich 225; 987 NW2d 161 (2022).” People v Gelia, 984
NW2d 185 (Mich, 2023). In Parks, our Supreme Court recognized that the federal Supreme Court
had foreclosed extending Miller to those who committed their crimes when they were 18 years of
age or older. Parks, 510 Mich at 247. A majority of the Parks Court went further, however, and
granted relief under our state Constitution to those defendants who commit certain crimes (e.g.,
murder) when they were 18 years of age, essentially treating those defendants as juveniles for
purpose of our state’s mandatory-sentencing scheme. Specifically, the Court held: “We hold that
this [proportionality] test, overall, compels the conclusion that mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old
defendants to life in prison, without first considering the attributes of youth, is unusually excessive

                                                 -1-
imprisonment and thus a disproportionate sentence that constitutes ‘cruel or unusual punishment’
under Const 1963, art 1, § 16.” Id. at 255.

        At the same time, the Court took pains to limit its holding to those who were 18 years of
age when they committed their crimes, see, e.g., id. at 232, 244-245, 255, 266-268, and it left in
place its earlier holding in People v Hall, 396 Mich 650; 242 NW2d 377 (1976), where the Court
had held that mandatory LWOP did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, Parks, 510 Mich
at 255 n 9. In the words of the Parks majority, “our opinion today does not affect Hall’s holding
as to those older than 18.” Id. Taken together, the Parks Court effectively redrew the statutory
line separating youths and adults from “17 v 18” years of age to “18 v 19” years of age, at least
for purposes of mandatory LWOP sentences.

        In this case, defendant was 19 years old when he murdered the victim. Thus, the holding
of Parks does not justify or permit this Court to ignore Hall, as a panel of this Court has already
recognized in a recent published opinion. People v Adamowicz, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___
NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 330612), slip op at 4 (noting that “Parks recognized Hall as still
controlling for those over the age of 18, which include[d]” the defendant in that case). Although
one could certainly read the analysis of Parks to reach those defendants who were 19 years of age
or older when they committed murder or other serious offense and, as a result, received a
mandatory LWOP sentence, lower courts are bound to follow the holdings of the Supreme Court
and cannot “anticipatorily ignore” binding precedent. Assoc Builders & Contractors v Lansing,
499 Mich 177, 191-192; 880 NW2d 765 (2016). And here, Hall remains good law, except as
modified by Parks with respect to 18-year-olds.

         Given this, assuming arguendo that this panel applied the same proportionality analysis to
defendant that the Parks majority applied to the defendant in that case, and further assuming
arguendo that this panel arrived at a conclusion similar to that of the Parks majority, this panel
would still be without authority to provide defendant any relief, given the binding precedent of
Hall as-applied to those like defendant who committed murder when they were 19-years-old or
older. Thus, any review by this panel of the proportionality of defendant’s LWOP sentence would
be an exercise in futility and obiter dictum, given our Supreme Court’s explicit recognition in
Parks of the continuing viability of Hall to 19-year-olds and older. Parks, 510 Mich at 522 n 9.
“It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule or modify caselaw if and when it becomes obsolete,
and the Court of Appeals and the lower courts are bound by the precedent established by the
Supreme Court until it takes such action.” People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App
376, 387-388; 741 NW2d 61 (2007).

       Accordingly, having reconsidered Part II.B of our earlier opinion in light of Parks,
including the Parks majority’s express limitation of its holding to 18-year-olds, we again affirm.

                                                            /s/ Thomas C. Cameron
                                                            /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
                                                            /s/ Brock A. Swartzle

                                               -2-