PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIAM EDWARD ARMOUR III

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIAM EDWARD ARMOUR III
Docket No. 381197
LC No. 08-001845-01-FC
Christopher M. Murray
Presiding Judge
Mark T. Boonstra
Colleen A. O’Brien
Judges
The delayed application for leave to appeal is DENIED because defendant has failed to
establish that the trial court committed any error that might warrant reversal in denying the successive
motion for relief from judgment. Admittedly, in the order appealed here, the trial court appears to have
credited defense counsel’s seeming representation that defendant was 20 years old at the time of the
subject offenses. However, our review of the record indicates that defendant was born in September 1986
and would thus have been 21 years old when he committed those offenses on October 28, 2007.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court reached the correct ultimate result by denying defendant’s
request for resentencing. See generally People v Eads, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Supreme
Court Docket No. 168205) (summarizing the pertinent constitutional protections that our Supreme Court
has extended to those who are “under 21 years old” at the time the offense is committed); People v
Adamowicz, 346 Mich App 213, 231; 12 NW3d 35 (2023) (explaining that “ ‘lines must be drawn’ in
determining when an adult can be held criminally responsible such that a legislatively imposed sentence
of life in prison without the possibility of parole must be upheld,” and that, “clearly, 21 is beyond any line
currently established in Michigan or elsewhere”) (citation omitted). Moreover, we agree with the trial
court’s conclusion that defendant’s other stated grounds for relief lack any substantive merit.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
September 24, 2026
A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. , Chief Clerk, on
Date

-- 1 of 1 --