High court asks for sentencing direction
An attorney for a notorious Macomb County killer asked the state Supreme Court to provide judges more direction in sentencing juveniles convicted of murder.
Erin Van Campen, representing Ihab Masalmani, now 28, told the high court in oral arguments in early March the justices need to spell out the guidelines for judges’ decisions on whether to sentence juvenile murderers to life without parole or between 25 to 40 years, with a maximum of 60 years.
“They’re doing their best but they’re still not getting it right,” Van Campen said. “Our system can have no confidence that these sentences are accurate if our trial courts don’t have the guidance they desperately need.
“When courts lack guidance about this critical issue, arbitrariness will result.”
She said sentencing Judge Diane Druzinski wrongly used Masalmani’s age against him instead as a “mitigating factor” resulting from the landmark 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller vs. Alabama. Van Campen said judges are not clear on how to use six factors to determine whether a defendant is “irreparably corrupt” and remain in prison the rest of his or her life, or have a chance at freedom.
Miller v. Alabama is known as the “juvenile lifer” decision. It outlawed automatic life-without-parole terms for those under 18 convicted of firstdegree murder because it was cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling impacted more than 300 cases in Michigan, including about a dozen in Macomb County. Among them were that of Masalmani and Robert Taylor, now 27, who were convicted in 2010 of firstdegree murder for the August 2009 shooting death of Matthew Landry, 21, of Chesterfield Township, after abducting him from outside an Eastpointe sandwich shop.
Defense attorneys say judges in this and other cases erroneously use mitigating factors as aggravating factors to the defendant’s detriment.
Druzinski in her 2015 opinion points out Maslamani was only four months shy of his 18th birthday and Taylor was 16 months shy of his 18th birthday when they killed Landry in an abandoned home in Detroit.
“There was nothing in the testimony or evidence presented which suggests that treating the defendant differently from an 18-yearold would be warranted in this case,” Druzinski said.
Van Campen remarked at the recent hearing: “This factor weighed heavily in favor of life without parole. That reasoning is totally backward and isn’t specific to Mr. Masalmani.”
Evidence indicated Masalmani had a “terrible” upbringing, as it was termed by Druzinski. Masalamani and his younger sister were brought here from Lebanon, and he landed in foster care, from which he escaped placement 13 or 14 times and had seven contacts with the juvenile deliquency system. In his teens, he became involved with gangs in Detroit.
Maslamani’s prior attorney, Valerie Newman, said her client’s ability to form strong attachments with his social worker, his guardian ad litem and a foster parent shows he is not irreparably corrupt.
Newman said Maslamani behaved well in prison although prosecutors noted his behavior improved only after he learned he had a chance at resentencing.
Van Campen said Druzinski also committed other “legal errors in (her) analysis of Miller factors.”
She said Druzinski “expressed concern that Mr. Masalmani needed more help than the MDOC could offer while disregarding the significant progress he had already made in his early years in the MDOC. Her concern about the MDOC’s resources may not be adequate are speculative, not supported by the record and are not an appropriate consideration for sentencing” under rules cited in another prior case.”
But arguing in favor of
Druzinski’s sentence was Assistant Macomb Prosecutor Joshua Van Laan, who told the court: “I think evidence lacks a mitigating factor and also contains evidence that supports a life-without-parole sentence.
“The defendant in this case is a textbook example of the rare irreparably corrupt juvenile that Miller is considering. If this is not one of those rare cases, then what is? The defendant continues as time goes one to exhibit all of those sustained characteristics of somebody who is irreparably corrupt.”
Van Laan said Druzinski considered other factors.
“I don’t believe the trial court focuses solely on the proximity to the bright-line age of 18,” Van Laan said. “The court evaluated his individual characteristics as required.”
According to the Michigan State Appellate Defenders Office, “the potential mitigating factors are chronological age and immaturity, impetuosity, and the failure to appreciate risks and consequences; the offender’s family and home environment; circumstances of the offense, including extent of participation in the criminal conduct; impact of familial and peer pressures; effect of offender’s youth on the criminal-justice process, such as inability to comprehend a plea bargain; and the possibility of rehabilitation.”
The court did not indicate when it would issue a decision.