Court Opinion

ID: 9931474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 06:04:54.161121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:59.040239
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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     February 8, 2024
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 355536
                                                                     Oakland Circuit Court
LAMONT BERNARD HEARD,                                                LC No. 1998-163897-FC

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and MURRAY and PATEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Defendant was 18 years old when he committed first-degree premeditated murder,
conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and possessed a firearm during the commission of a
felony. For the murder specific crimes, defendant was sentenced in 1999 to mandatory life in
prison without the possibility of parole. In 2019, defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment,
arguing in part that because he was 18 when he committed the crimes, his mandatory life sentence
was unconstitutional and he was entitled to resentencing. The trial court denied the motion,
holding that People v Parks, 510 Mich 225; 987 NW2d 161 (2022), could not be applied
retroactively to defendant’s case. In light of the precedent established by People v Poole, __ Mich
App __; __ NW2d __ (2024), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

        After defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree
murder, and two counts of felony-firearm, he appealed his convictions as of right. In an
unpublished, per curiam opinion, this Court affirmed defendant’s convictions, rejecting arguments
of prosecutorial misconduct raised in his appellate counsel’s brief, as well as arguments of
instructional error and ineffective assistance of counsel raised in defendant’s own Standard 11 1
brief. People v Heard, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 28,

1
 A Standard 11 brief is the former version of a Standard 4 brief. Administrative Order No. 2004-
06.

                                                -1-
2002 (Dkt Nos. 221827, 222017, 222018, 222019). The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
People v Heard, 468 Mich 872 (2003).

         Sixteen years later defendant moved for relief from judgment under MCR 6.508, asserting
entitlement to a new trial for a basket full of reasons: (1) newly-discovered evidence established
his conviction was based on perjured testimony, (2) the prosecution suppressed favorable
evidence, (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, (4) his trial counsel violated the
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by withdrawing a viable defense, (5) his trial counsel
failed to convey a settlement offer, (6) he was denied the right to be present at all stages of the
trial, (7) he was deprived of his right to a public trial, (8) the trial court failed to instruct the jury
that no adverse inference could be drawn from his decision not to testify, (9) the trial court erred
in denying his motion for severance, (10) the trial court’s constructive amendment to the
indictment denied him due process, (11) the trial court’s failure to produce the grand jury and
witness detainer transcripts denied him due process, and (12) MCL 750.316 and MCL 791.234(6),
as applied, violate the Michigan Constitution’s ban on cruel or unusual punishment, because they
mandate the imposition of a life sentence without parole for someone 18 years old at the time of
the offense, and MCL 769.25a, violates the Equal Protection Clause, as applied. Further, he argued
the failure of his previous appellate counsel to raise these issues on direct appeal constituted
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

        The trial court denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment in an opinion and order,
rejecting his request to unseal the grand jury file, and finding he was not entitled to relief under
MCR 6.508(D)(3), in part, because he did not demonstrate good cause for failing to raise issues 3
through 10 on direct appeal. The trial court stated:

         But for the issues related to (1) newly[-]discovered evidence, (2) suppression of
         evidence, and (3) the constitutionality of MCL 750.316 (life imprisonment without
         parole for first-degree murder) and MCL 791.234(6)(a) (ineligibility for parole for
         people convicted of first-degree murder under Section 750.316), all of the issues
         raised in his motion for relief from judgment would have been known to Defendant
         at the time he filed his Standard 11 brief. There was no limit on the number of
         issues Defendant could have raised and, there was no page limit at the time
         Defendant filed his Standard 11 brief.

        The trial court also denied relief on the basis of newly-discovered evidence and defendant’s
asserted Brady2 violation, determining that defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice under
MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b). Finally, the trial court rejected defendant’s constitutional challenges to
MCL 750.316, MCL 791.234(6), and MCL 769.25a. The court acknowledged Miller v Alabama,
567 US 460, 465; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), in which the United States Supreme
Court held “that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their
crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’ ” but
found the holding inapplicable to defendant because he was 18 years old at the time of his crime.
And, it reasoned defendant had provided no other binding authority. With regard to defendant’s
equal protection argument, the trial court stated defendant failed to meet the burden of

2
    Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; 83 S Ct 1194; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).

                                                   -2-
demonstrating no rational basis for treating offenders convicted of first-degree murder who have
turned 18 years old different than those who have not.

        We subsequently denied defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal the trial
court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment, People v Heard, unpublished order of the
Court of Appeals, entered February 25, 2021 (Docket No. 355356), but in lieu of granting leave to
appeal, the Supreme Court directed us to “hold this case in abeyance pending its decision in People
v Good (Court of Appeals Docket No. 349268). After Good is decided, the Court of Appeals shall
reconsider this case in light of Good.” People v Heard, 508 Mich 965 (2021).

        People v Good (On Reconsideration), ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023)
(Docket No. 349268), was decided this past April, and held “that a defendant who has
supplemented appellate counsel’s efforts with a Standard 4 brief does not per se waive their ability
to later raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in a motion for relief from
judgment.” A panel of this Court then reconsidered defendant’s delayed application, and granted
it, limited to whether defendant is entitled to resentencing under Parks. People v Heard,
unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 1, 2023 (Docket No. 355536).

                                           II. ANALYSIS

                                  A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In reviewing this preserved issue, we are mindful that “[a] trial court’s decision on a motion
for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Christian, 510 Mich
52, 74-75; 987 NW2d 29 (2022). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court makes a decision
that ‘falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes,’ or ‘makes an error of law.’ ”
Id. at 75 (citations omitted). “The retroactive effect of a court’s decision is a question of law that
this Court reviews de novo.” People v Quinn, 305 Mich App 484, 489; 853 NW2d 383 (2014)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).

                                B. RETROACTIVITY OF PARKS

       Under MCR 6.508(D), a court may not grant postjudgment relief if the motion for relief:

       (3) alleges grounds for relief, other than jurisdictional defects, which could have
       been raised on appeal from the conviction and sentence or in a prior motion under
       this subchapter, unless the defendant demonstrates

               (a) good cause for failure to raise such grounds on appeal or in the prior
               motion, and

               (b) actual prejudice from the alleged irregularities that support the claim for
               relief.

Defendant had good cause for failing to raise this sentencing challenge on direct appeal, for at the
time neither Miller nor Parks had been decided. The prosecution essentially concedes this point.

                                                 -3-
        Thus, our focus is on actual prejudice, which in the case of a sentencing challenge means
the sentence is invalid. MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b)(iv). Defendant asserts actual prejudice on the basis
that Parks should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, like his, and invalidates
his sentence. In light of the Court’s decision in Poole, we agree. Poole held that Parks is to be
applied retroactively, and applies to sentences like defendants. Poole is on point and is binding
under the court rule. MCR 7.215(J)(1). We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for it
to consider whether defendant’s sentence of life without the possibility of parole is still the
appropriate sentence under the standards set forth in MCL 769.25. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                            /s/ Anica Letica
                                                            /s/ Christopher M. Murray
                                                            /s/ Sima G. Patel

                                                -4-