People of Michigan v. Laquan Johnson

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 10:01 AM v No. 369718 Genesee Circuit Court LAQUAN JOHNSON, LC No. 00-007029-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: YATES, P.J., and YOUNG and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. In 2001, a jury convicted defendant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offenses, of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; armed robbery, MCL 750.529; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b.1 The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for his second- degree murder conviction, 39 to 75 years’ imprisonment for his armed robbery conviction, and 32 to 48 months’ imprisonment for his larceny conviction. The trial court also sentenced defendant to two years’ imprisonment for his felony-firearm conviction, to run consecutively to his other sentences. Following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v Stovall, 510 Mich 301; 987 NW2d 85 (2022), defendant sought relief from judgment, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing because he was 17 years old at the time of the offense and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The trial court resentenced defendant to serve concurrent terms of 24 to 45 years’ imprisonment for second-degree murder and 15 to 24 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery, and a consecutive term of two years’ imprisonment for felony- firearm. Defendant appeals as of right, arguing that his sentence for second-degree murder is disproportionate and unreasonable in light of his circumstances and the offense. We affirm. 1 Defendant was also convicted of larceny in a building, MCL 750.360, but we vacated this conviction in a previous appeal. People v Johnson, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 3, 2004 (Docket No. 237200). -1-  I. BACKGROUND In July 2000, when defendant was 17 years old, he and his codefendant, Cortorian Gale, entered into the victim’s home in Flint, Michigan, wearing masks. The victim’s minor children, cousins, and nephews were sleeping in the home when defendant and Gale entered. Defendant and Gale woke the children up at gunpoint, warning the children to do as they were told or they would be shot. Defendant and Gale moved the children into a room in the back of the home, next to the victim’s bedroom. While the children were secured in the room, defendant and Gale woke the victim at gunpoint and demanded money, guns, and drugs, each pointing their respective weapons at the victim. Defendant and Gale forced the victim into the basement to retrieve various items before they returned the victim to his bedroom. Following a struggle between defendant and the victim, Gale shot the victim in the chest, after defendant’s gun misfired. After the shooting, defendant and Gale ransacked the victim’s home and left in the victim’s vehicle. Emergency responders confirmed that the victim died at the scene of the shooting. In July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court decided Stovall, 510 Mich at 322, holding that sentences of life with the possibility of parole for second-degree murder, imposed on a defendant who was a juvenile at the time of the offense, constituted cruel or unusual punishment. Defendant moved for a relief from judgment in light of Stovall, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing. The trial court agreed with defendant and granted his request for resentencing following Stovall. At resentencing, defense counsel emphasized defendant’s age at the time of the offense, defendant’s improved behavior in prison, defendant’s participation in prison programming, defendant’s family support, and the results of defendant’s independent psychological evaluation and criminogenic risk assessment. Defendant told the court that he was a different person at resentencing than he was at the time of the offense, and defendant acknowledged the impact of his decisions at that time. Defendant emphasized that he was not a danger to his community and was a better person. The trial court considered defendant’s criminal history, his age at the time of the offense, the nature of the offense, and the reports defendant provided for resentencing. The trial court sentenced defe