PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES G GOSTLIN

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES G GOSTLIN
Docket No. 379375
LC No. 1963-000025-FC
Christopher M. Murray
Presiding Judge
Michelle M. Rick
Sima G. Patel
Judges
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
The motion for bond pending appeal is GRANTED to the following extent. Given
defendant’s age, medical conditions, and overall behavior while in prison, which we conclude show that
defendant is not likely to pose a danger to others, and because this appeal raises substantial questions of
law and fact, MCL 770.9a(2)(b), we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying
defendant’s motion for bond pending appeal. However, pursuant to MCR 7.209(B)(2), “In a criminal case
the granting of bond pending appeal and the amount of it are within the discretion of the trial court, subject
to applicable laws and rules.” Accordingly, we REMAND to the trial court with directions that it hold a
hearing and set an appropriate bond, in both the amount and any other conditions the trial court finds
appropriate. We note that “[b]ond must be sufficient to guarantee the appearance of the defendant.”
Minimally, defendant’s release on bond must be conditioned on defendant agreeing to: (a) prosecute the
appeal to decision; (b) surrender himself to the sheriff of the county in which he was convicted if his
sentence is affirmed on appeal or if the appeal is dismissed; (c) appear in the trial court if the case is
remanded for further proceedings; (d) remain in Michigan unless the trial court gives written approval to
leave; and (3) notify the trial court clerk of any change of address. Any further issues concerning
defendant’s bond shall be addressed to the trial court, and supervision of defendant’s compliance with the
terms of the bond shall be carried out by the trial court, pending further proceedings.
The trial court shall hold the bond hearing and set an appropriate appellate bond within 21 days of
the date of the Clerk’s entry of this order.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
Murray, P.J. (dissenting). I would deny the motion for bond pending appeal, as defendant has not shown
in a clear and convincing manner that there are substantial issues of fact or law at issue in his appeal, MCR
7.209(B)(2) and MCL 770.9a(2), the same conclusion the trial court reached in denying defendant's second
motion for bond. The court’s conclusion was not an abuse of discretion, and was in fact a fully-informed
decision about defendant’s case and circumstances. People v Tate, 134 Mich App 682, 693; 352 NW2d
297 (1984). After all, the court had recently held a resentencing hearing under Miller v Alabama, 567 US

-- 1 of 2 --

460; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), where it heard evidence and argument from both sides, and
rendered a decision re-imposing life without parole. That discretionary decision is now on appeal, and
our Court just last month concluded that any errors (if any) were not so manifest that peremptory reversal
was required. See People v Gostlin, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 6, 2026
(Docket No. 379375). Although that motion garners a different standard than the current one, the panel’s
determination is nonetheless evidence that the issues on appeal are not substantial. Indeed, defendant’s
appeal is one of many that this Court has seen over the past few years taken from a resentencing done
pursuant to Miller. Those appeals typically involve reviewing the evidence and factual findings of the
trial court (which are also subject to a deferential standard), and applying those to the governing law. And
importantly, the trial court's decision to sentence defendant to life without parole is reviewed for an abuse
of discretion, People v Taylor, 510 Mich 112, 128; 987 NW2d 132 (2022), a difficult standard to
overcome, People v Rogers (On Remand), 338 Mich App 312, 320; 979 NW2d 747 (2021). Defendant
also has no family in Michigan, and appears intent on moving to Ohio if he is released, raising legitimate
concerns for his future apperance in this state. See People v Giacalone, 16 Mich App 352, 360-361; 167
NW2d 871 (1969).
While defendant has and will argue that he has served more than 60 years in prison, has a relatively good
record, and has health issues, the prosecution has and will argue about his failure to acknowledge his
sexual crimes and activities, and the fact that he murdered a child with 8 blows to the head with a hammer,
and beat both Mr. and Mrs. Husted (and paralyzing Mr. Husted), while also repeatedly raping Mrs. Husted.
More could be written, but the point is that nothing defendant has presented in his motion establishes that
the trial court abused its discretion when denying defendant’s motion for bond pending appeal, as it was
within the principled outcomes to decide-especially in the immediate aftermath of the Miller hearing-that
there was not clear and convincing evidence that substantial questions of law or fact exist in the pending
appeal. If the issue is merely that defendant’s age, prison time and health should allow him to be released
from prison, he should turn to the Governor and her equitable powers of pardon and commutation, Const
1963, art 5, § 14, as the legal standards preclude the current relief he seeks in a court of law, at least until
the merits are resolved.
A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. , Chief Clerk, on
Date
April 10, 2026

-- 2 of 2 --