The Day Michigan’s Sentencing Guidelines Changed (People v Lockridge)

People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015)

A Guide to One of the Most Important Early Stages in a Felony Case

Summary: The Day Michigan’s Sentencing Guidelines Changed

In 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015), fundamentally altering the state’s criminal sentencing landscape. For decades, Michigan operated under a “mandatory” sentencing guideline system. Lockridge struck down the mandatory nature of these guidelines, ruling that they violated the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Today, while the guidelines remain a critical tool for judges, they are advisory rather than compulsory, granting trial courts significantly more discretion in determining a defendant’s fate.

Background

The Conflict Between Judges and Juries. The core of the Lockridge dispute lies in the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court established in cases like Apprendi v. New Jersey and Alleyne v. United States that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime—beyond the prescribed statutory maximum or mandatory minimum—must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Michigan, the legislative sentencing guidelines required judges to “score” various variables (Offense Variables or OVs). Many of these variables were based on facts found by the judge during sentencing, not by the jury during the trial. Because these scores mandated a specific minimum sentence range, the Michigan system was increasingly seen as unconstitutional under federal precedent.

Historical Factual Case Details

The case originated with Kimani Lockridge, who was convicted by a jury of third-degree home invasion. During sentencing, the trial judge scored several Offense Variables, including OV 4 (psychological injury to a victim) and OV 9 (number of victims).

The jury had not made specific findings regarding these psychological injuries or the specific number of victims; the judge determined these facts independently. These scores pushed Lockridge’s sentencing guidelines into a higher bracket, essentially mandating a longer minimum prison term than would have been required based solely on the jury’s verdict. Lockridge challenged this, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated because a judge, not a jury, found the facts that increased his mandatory minimum sentence.

What’s at Stake

Judicial Discretion vs. Legislative Control

Prior to Lockridge, Michigan’s sentencing system was designed to ensure uniformity—the legislature wanted to make sure that two people committing the same crime in different counties received similar sentences.

However, the “mandatory” nature of this uniformity came at a cost. It stripped judges of the ability to look at the unique nuances of a case if those nuances fell outside the rigid grid. The stakes in Lockridge involved the balance of power:

• For Defendants: It was about the right to have a jury of peers decide every fact that could lead to more prison time.

• For the State: It was about maintaining a predictable, structured sentencing system that prevented “rogue” sentencing.

The Court’s Opinion

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Robert P. Young Jr., the Michigan Supreme Court held that the state’s sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional to the extent that they required a judge to increase a mandatory minimum sentence based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.

To remedy this, the Court did not throw out the guidelines entirely. Instead, they performed “judicial surgery.” They severed the provision of the law that made the guidelines mandatory. The Court ruled that:

1. Guidelines are now advisory.

2. Sentencing courts must still “consult” the guidelines and take them into account.

3. A sentence that departs from the guidelines is now reviewed by appellate courts for “reasonableness.”

In Closing: The New Normal

People v. Lockridge represents one of the most significant shifts in Michigan criminal law in the last 20 years. While the guidelines still provide a “starting point” for every sentence, the “mandatory” shackles have been removed. This gives defense attorneys more room to argue for leniency and gives judges the freedom to impose sentences they believe truly fit the crime and the individual—provided they can justify the result as “reasonable.”

Related Links & Sources

• Full Text of People v. Lockridge (Michigan Courts)

• U.S. Supreme Court: Alleyne v. United States

• Michigan Legislature: Sentencing Guidelines Act

• SCAO: Michigan Sentencing Guidelines Manuals

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.