Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to not extend the principle of Miller v. Alabama to 18-20 year olds conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent on proportionality review and the evolving standards of decency

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. THE 4 TO 3 MAJORITY DECISION OF HE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT FLOUTED U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT i.e. THE EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY ON PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW WHEN ADDRESSING WHETHER TO EXTEND THE PRINCIPLE OF MILLER V ALABAMA TO 18 TO 20 YEAR OLDS, BUT RATHER BASED ITS RULING ON ROPER V SIMMONS DECIDED 15 YEARS AGO WHERE THE COURT DREW THE LINE AT 18 BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE SOCIETY DRAWS THE LINE AT FOR MANY REASONS 2. THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT DENIED PETITIONER HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REDRESS HIS GRIEVANCES WHEN IT NULLIFIED THE MOTION FGR RECONSIDERATION . 3. MR. MANNING IS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHERE THE 4 TO 3 MAJORITY DECISIGN OF THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT HAS DCIDED A FEDERAL QUESTION IN A WAY THAT , CONLICTS WITH BOTH THE WASHINGTON AND ILLINOIS STATE SUPRMEE COURT ON WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF MILLER V ALABAMA SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO 18 TO 20 YEAR OLDS; ; 4. THE MANDATORY LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE MR. MANNING’s RECEIVED FOR AN OFFENSE HE COMMITTED AS : AN 18 YEAR OLD YOUTH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER BOTH MICHIGANS 1963 CONSTITUTION AND THE US. CONSTITUTION (4-A) Miller v Alabama reaffirmed that Children are categorically less ; culpable than adults for purposes of Sentencing : (4-B)} Mr. Manning’s Mandatory Life without parole sentence violates the 1963 Michigan Constitution s Ban on Cruel Unusual Punishment : od fT | | {4-B-I) Because they share the same qualities of youth as younger children, the .. severity of mandatory life without parole sentences for 18 year olds outweighs the gravity of their offenses (4-B-1-a) There is no meaningful scientific difference between 18 and 20 | year olds and younger adolescents ; , {4-B-1-b) There is an emerging National Consensus that 18 to 26 year a} olds should not be treated as fully mature adults | | (4-B-1-c) The U.S. Supreme Court drew a bright line at age 18 in Roper, based on regulated activities, ie: voting, marrying without consent , having consensual sex, having medical procedures without consent, entering in contracts , joining the military , serving on juries, that center on characteristics of LOGICAL REASONING for which are based on different characteristics than the EMOTIONALLY AROUSING _ characteristics underpinning the U.S. Supreme court decision in Miller, establishing a conflict of law Roper and Miller and existinglaws ; (4-B-1-d) The U.S. Supreme Court drew a bright line at age 18 in Roper v . Simmons, based on regulated activities, i.c.: voting, marrying without consent, having consensual sex, having medical procedures without consent, entering in contracts, joining the military, serving on juries, that are in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v Florida (2014) and Moore v Texas (2017) , that requires States to refer to the Medical communities current standards; | (4-b-1-e) Michigan’s statute mel 750.316 that mandates a mandatory life | sentence for the conviction of first degree murder prohibiting , the judge from considering mitigating factors that could allow } ; ti 1 : a reduced sentence, for which is in direct conflict with the us supreme courts decision in Eddings v Oklahoma that prohbit : states from considering mitigating factors (4-B-1-f) At a minimum, mandatory life without parole is | disproportionate for 18 year olds who did not kill or intend to | kill. | (4-B-2) Sentencing 18 year olds to mandatory life without parole is | disproportionate compared to other sentences under Michigan Law . | {4-B-3) Lass than half of States allow mandatory life without parole | sentences for 18 year olds (4-B-4) Mandatory life without parole will never advance the penological goals of rehabilitation (4-C) Several other State and Federal Courts have applied Miller v Alabama to 18 year olds like Mr.Manning (4-D) At a minimum, Mr. Manning’s mandatory life without parole sentence is unconstitutional as applied to him . | itt