People of Michigan v. Walter Lee Jones

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 10:48 AM v No. 357505 Berrien Circuit Court WALTER LEE JONES, LC No. 1993-000487-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: YATES, P.J., and YOUNG and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. In 1993, defendant was convicted of (1) first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316; (2) felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; (3) assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84; (4) possession of a short-barreled shotgun, MCL 750.224; and (5) possession of stolen property worth more than $100, MCL 750.535. Pertinent to this opinion, defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the first-degree felony murder conviction. In 1994, defendant appealed by right his convictions, and this Court affirmed.1 In 2006, defendant moved for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied. In 2020, defendant moved again for relief from judgment, which the trial court also denied. Defendant applied for delayed leave to appeal the order denying his successive motion for relief from judgment, which this Court denied. People v Jones, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 13, 2021 (Docket No. 357505). Defendant sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court and, after holding the matter in abeyance, in lieu of granting leave to appeal the Court remanded the matter to this Court for consideration as on leave granted in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich 1 People v Jones, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 6, 1996 (Docket No. 172212). -1- 225; 987 NW2d 161 (2022), and People v Stovall, 510 Mich 301; 987 NW2d 85 (2022).2 We vacate defendant’s first-degree felony murder sentence and remand for resentencing. I. FACTS In late January 1993, defendant was riding in a vehicle that he knew was stolen with four friends and family members. The individuals were in their late teens and early twenties; defendant was 19 years and 10 months old. They decided to rob someone.3 At approximately 2:00 a.m., the group saw a visibly intoxicated woman walking in the neighborhood. Defendant got out of the vehicle, brandishing a short-barreled shotgun. His cousin got out of the vehicle behind him, also carrying a short-barreled shotgun. The two men pushed the woman toward a grassy area near a tree. Defendant’s cousin continued engaging with the woman while defendant turned his attention to a passerby. Defendant pointed his firearm at the passerby and told the passerby to run, after which he fired the weapon at the passerby. The passerby heard the first shot, heard pellets hit nearby buildings and trees, and then heard a second shot. Defendant and the rest of his group scattered. The woman was later discovered with a serious gunshot wound in her back, still breathing and with her eyes open. Officers performed first aid until a medical unit arrived and rushed the victim to the hospital, where emergency surgery was attempted, but she died from the wound at approximately 3:15 a.m., less than an hour and a half after defendant and his accomplices decided to rob her at gunpoint. An autopsy report showed that she had bled to death as a result of a shotgun wound to her back, which caused significant damage and bleeding in her lungs. Over 200 shot pellets were found in the victim’s body, as well as wadding from the shotgun, which indicated that she had been shot at a close distance. After a four-day jury trial, defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting in the first- degree murder of the woman, as well as of four other charges, as stated. After an unsuccessful appeal of his convictions, defendant moved for relief from judgment in 2006, which the trial court denied. In 2020, defendant moved again for relief from judgment, arguing that new scientific evidence regarding the development of adolescent brains that formed the basis for the 2012 decision in Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), entitled him, a 19-year-old offender with a “mild mental” disability, to leniency in sentencing afforded to juveniles convicted of first-degree murder.4 Accordingly, he sought resentencing with his youth as a mitigating factor to weigh against a mandatory sentence of life without