Summary of Argument

On Question 1, Amicus argues that Poole’s successive motion for relief from judgment is “based on a retroactive change in law,” as defined by MCR 6.502(G)(2) due to the plain language of the provision, the meaning of related provisions of MCR 6.502(G) in the court rules, the function of MCR 6.502(G), and prior court practice. Given the importance of the well-functioning of our state post-conviction system - not just on this legal issue - Amicus delves deeper into Question 1 than the parties. In the alternative, if this Court accepts the Plaintiff’s invitation to adopt a narrow and forced understanding of the “based on” language under MCR 6.502(G), Amicus then encourages this Court to articulate a more capacious understanding of what is retroactive for purposes of state law.

On Question 2, Amicus offers two points. First, Amicus draws on Michigan-specific sources to provide a deeper historical understanding of the broader protection of our state constitution in Art 1, Sec 16. Second, Amicus answers the Court’s second question presented only as to Art 1, Sec 16 with a Michigan-specific focus. Our state constitution bans the mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for every emerging adult convicted of any first-degree murder that occurs without any individualized inquiry into the impact of that person’s youth and immaturity, the young person’s role in the crime or the nature of the offense, or any other mitigating circumstances.

Summary of Argument

Question 1: Retroactive Change in Law under MCR 6.502(G)(2)

Amicus contends that Poole's motion for relief from judgment qualifies as "based on a retroactive change in law" under MCR 6.502(G)(2). This argument is supported by:

• The plain language of the provision

• The interpretation of related provisions in MCR 6.502(G)

• The purpose of MCR 6.502(G)

• Established court practice

Alternatively, if the Court adopts a restrictive interpretation of "based on," Amicus proposes a broader definition of "retroactive" for state law purposes.

Question 2: Protection under Michigan Constitution Art 1, Sec 16

Amicus provides historical context for the expansive protection afforded by Art 1, Sec 16 of the Michigan Constitution.

Regarding the Court's second question, Amicus argues that Art 1, Sec 16 prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for emerging adults convicted of first-degree murder. This prohibition applies regardless of:

• The individual's youth and immaturity

• Their involvement in the crime

• The circumstances of the offense

• Any mitigating factors

Summary of Argument

Question 1: Retroactive Law Change

Amicus, a legal expert, believes that Poole's request for relief from judgment is valid because it's "based on a retroactive change in law." This means that a new law has been passed that applies to Poole's case, even though it wasn't in effect when he was convicted.

Amicus supports this argument by:

• Looking at the exact wording of the law

• Comparing it to similar laws

• Considering how the law is typically used

• Reviewing past court cases

Alternative Argument

If the court doesn't agree with Amicus's first argument, Amicus suggests a broader definition of "retroactive" for state law. This would allow more people to benefit from changes in the law, even if those changes aren't technically retroactive.

Question 2: Michigan Constitution

Historical Context

Amicus explains that Michigan's Constitution has a long history of protecting individual rights.

Protection for Young Offenders

Specifically, Amicus argues that the Michigan Constitution prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for young offenders who commit first-degree murder. This is because the Constitution requires courts to consider the offender's age, maturity, and other factors before imposing such a severe sentence.

Summary of Argument

Question 1: Is Poole's request for help based on a change in the law?

Amicus, a legal expert, says yes. They argue that the new law clearly applies to Poole's case, and that the court rules and past cases support this view. Amicus believes it's important for the court system to work well, so they're explaining this issue in detail.

Alternatively, if the court decides that the new law doesn't apply to Poole's case, Amicus suggests that the court should still consider what "retroactive" means in Michigan law.

Question 2: Does Michigan's Constitution protect Poole?

Amicus provides historical information about Michigan's Constitution, which protects people from certain punishments. They argue that the Constitution prohibits giving a life sentence without parole to young people who commit first-degree murder without considering their age, role in the crime, or other factors that could make their punishment less severe.

Summary of Argument

Question 1:

This brief says that Poole's request for help is allowed because of a change in the law. They say this is because:

• The words in the rule clearly say so.

• Other similar rules say the same thing.

• The rule is meant to help people like Poole.

• Courts have allowed this kind of request before.

If the court doesn't agree, Amicus suggests a different way to understand the rule that would still allow Poole's request.

Question 2:

Amicus also explains that Michigan's constitution has special protections for young people. They argue that it's not fair to sentence young people to life in prison without considering their age and other factors.