Michigan Supreme Court rules on reparations for victims in juvenile life sentence case

Defendants sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as teenagers can still be required to pay restitution to victims – even if it was not part of the original sentence – according to a Michigan Supreme Court ruling Monday.

The seven-member court issued a unanimous ruling regarding the re-sentencing of juvenile lifers after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juveniles.

The case before the Michigan Supreme Court involved William Neilly, who, at age 17, was part of a group of four people who killed another teenager during an attempted armed robbery.

Neilly was convicted in 1993 of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and two counts of possession of a firearm. As required at the time, Neilly was automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Restitution was not part of the sentence.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued rulings in 2012 and 2016 striking down laws that provided for automatic life without parole in Alabama and Louisiana, as well as states with similar laws, such as Michigan.

Based on the facts presented in the Michigan Supreme Court ruling, the prosecutor agreed to a prison sentence of 35 to 60 years for Neilly’s resentencing. At the request of the victim’s mother, the court also added a payment of $14,895.78 to compensate the family for funeral expenses.

Neilly argued that this was an unconstitutional retroactive punishment, added to his prison sentence 28 years after the crime and his original conviction. His lawyers’ legal opinion said that Michigan’s sentencing laws in the 1990s took into account a defendant’s ability to pay.

“It is manifestly unfair and unjust to subject juvenile life sentenced prisoners to more stringent restitution laws at their resentencing hearings many years later than those in place at the time of their original crime, conviction and sentencing,” it said.

But in an opinion written by Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, the court noted that the primary purpose of restitution is not punishment.

“In enacting the restitution laws, the legislature intended to create a civil remedy,” she wrote. “Although the imposition of these laws has some punitive effect, that effect is not sufficient to overcome the demonstrated legislative intent. Accordingly, the imposition of restitution is not a punishment.”

The lead plaintiffs – the Kalamazoo County District Attorney and the State Appellate Defenders Office – could not be reached for comment Monday. Veteran prosecutor Timothy Baughman filed a brief on the case on behalf of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan.

“It may be that in cases like this, where restitution was not ordered previously, it will now be ordered,” he said. “… If they are entitled to restitution, it should be ordered at any resentencing, even if it was not ordered originally.”

Baughman, who is also an assistant district attorney in Wayne County, said he expects the decision to be rarely used, but it sets an important precedent.

“The victims have a right to reparation and this must be protected,” he said.