People of Michigan v. Jonathan Dewight Hickerson

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 25, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:26 PM v No. 369765 Oakland Circuit Court JONATHAN DEWIGHT HICKERSON, LC No. 2013-244355-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: LETICA, P.J., and MURRAY and PATEL, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was resentenced to a term of 40 to 60 years for his 2014 jury-trial convictions of first-degree felony murder (felony murder), MCL 750.316(1)(b); assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83; first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2); and three counts of carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b(1). Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him because the trial court failed to properly consider mitigating factors, and the sentence was disproportionate and an unconstitutional de facto life sentence. We remand. I. BACKGROUND In 2014, defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole for his felony-murder conviction, resulting from the 2012 death of Adriann Contreras during a botched home invasion committed when defendant was 17-years-old. A lengthy appeals process led to our Supreme Court vacating defendant’s sentence in 2022, and remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing.1 1 See People v James, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 21, 2016 (Docket Nos. 322890 and 322891), vacated in part by People v Hickerson, 503 Mich 912 (2018); and People v Hickerson (On Remand), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 8, 2019 (Docket No. 322891), vacated in part by People v Hickerson, 510 Mich 1068 (2022). -1-  A. DEFENDANT’S POSITION Before his resentencing, defendant filed a 250-page sentencing memorandum, explaining how his childhood was marred by trauma, neglect, and instability. Defendant’s mother was 17- years-old when she gave birth to defendant, while defendant’s father was 51-years-old. Defendant’s parents were addicted to crack, and defendant was often homeless or living in deplorable conditions throughout his childhood. Defendant was bullied and struggled in school, before dropping out in tenth grade. Soon after, defendant began selling drugs to help support his family, and joined the Latin Kings gang for protection. Defendant’s first interaction with the criminal justice system soon followed, when defendant was cited for truancy. Defendant was later arrested for stealing a car, resulting in him spending time in Children’s Village. After a domestic incident involving his mother and stepfather, defendant was sent to the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Center. As a result of injuries he sustained during the home invasion, defendant is completely and permanently blind. The sentencing memorandum detailed extensively defendant’s effort for rehabilitation during the 10 years he has been incarcerated, including teaching himself braille. Defendant also submitted a comprehensive reentry plan, including housing placements, community support services, and employment options. Defendant submitted numerous letters in support indicating defendant’s progress since his incarceration, and reiterating the support waiting for him on release. At defendant’s resentencing hearing, the trial court noted it reviewed defendant’s sentencing memorandum and his Presentence Investigative Report (PSIR).2 In light of the information provided in the PSIR and sentencing memorandum, defense counsel argued for the statutory minimum sentence of 25 years to be imposed. Defense counsel argued that while defendant’s report at the time of his original Miller3 hearing stated defendant had “limited potential for rehabilitation,” the evidence since indicated otherwise. According to defense counsel, the trial court “has to look at [defendant] now through the lens of his youth, look at the aims of sentencing . . . .” Defense counsel described defendant’s deep and ongoing remorse for his actions, and cited the numerous support letters discussing how often defendant expressed “his deep regret.” 2 The PSIR reiterated much of defendant’s childhood, and noted defendant was diagnosed with epilepsy and asthma as a child and Attention Deficit Disorder and Bipolar Disorder as a teen. Defendant accrue