|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 2, 1998, the Michigan Senate passed SB281 and HB 4065, the much fought over bills to reform Michigan's controversial "650 lifer law." (An opportunity to download the text of the bill and legislative analysis in Adobe PDF format appears at the bottom of the page). Under the prior bill, persons convicted of crimes involving more than 650 grams of cocaine or heroin were required to be sentennced to prison without the possibility of parole. A 1993, Michigan Supreme Court decision removed persons convicted of simply possessing more than 650 grams of cocaine from the ambit of this law and permitted these individuals to be subject to lifer law paroles in ten or fifteen years, depending on the date of the commission of their offense. The Michigan Supreme Court, however, refused to extend this ruling to any other 650 drug laws.
After years of public pressure, the Michigan Legislature finally amended this law on July 2, 1998 to provide some relief. If signed by the Governor, this law will be provide for the following:
Preliminary opinions seem to indicate that the trial judge is initially out of the loop except for cooperation. Cooperation certifications must come from the trial judge. It appears after the Parole Board initially reviews the case and certifies interest to the trial judge, the trial judge can still veto the parole under the lifer law veto provisions.
Before a parole can be granted under this this act to pre-October 1, 1998 cases, the board is required to consider all of the following: (a) whether the violation was part of a continues series of violations under the public health code; (b) whether the violation was committed by the individual in concert with five or more other individuals; (c) whether the individual was a principal administrator, organizer, leader of an entity organized to violate Michigan's drug law and whether the charged crime was committed in furtherance of that act; and, (d) whether the crime was committed in a drug-fee school zone. Persons released under this act must spend the first 30 days of their parole in a community corrections center or community residential home.
The battle has been won, but the war is not over. Prosecutors have vowed to challenge the constitutionality of this act. While they have not announced their exact strategy, the most likely challenge will be to argue that the retroactive provisions of the law violate the governor's commutation powers. An excellent memorandum defending the constitutionality of the statute now appears in the document libary at the bottom of this page. Additionally, the law does not address problems associated with mandatory consecutive sentences.
| Stuart G. Friedman Attorney at Law 212 East Huron, #200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 662-4070 Fax: (734) 665-7363 Stu@CrimApp.Com |
The following are important documents relative to this soon to be new law. As the documents become available, they will be posted here in PDF, RTF, and HTML. PDF is the format which bests preserves the formatting of the original document and you have Adobe Acrobat(c) Reader, this is the recommended format. (The program is free and a link to it follows). RTF is the best format to open the documents in your wordprocessor. HTML is the language of the web and permits you to view the document in your web browser. Icons which are grayed are document formats which are not yet implemented.