Legal Opinion

People v. Hill

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 13, 2005No. Docket 253327PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted, with the issue “limited to the question whether the parole board’s ‘life means life’ policy violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, U.S. Const, art I, § 10, cl 1.” After review de novo of this question of law, we conclude that there is no such violation. See People v Westman, 262 Mich App 184, 187; 685 NW2d 423 (2004).

Defendant was convicted of armed robbery in 1976. It appears that the sentencing judge gave defendant a choice of sentences, either a term of forty to sixty years’ imprisonment or a parolable life term. Apparently, defendant’s counsel…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. People v. RussoMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Morales v. Michigan Parole Bd.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. People v. CarsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. People v. LinoMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kenneth Foster v. Sharee BookerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
  2. People v. ScottMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  3. People v. JonesMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. People v. La Salle WashingtonMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
  5. People v. La Salle WashingtonMichigan Supreme Court · 2009

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API