PEOPLE OF MI V TIAH DESHON-JUANITA SUTTON

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Megan K. Cavanagh,
Chief Justice
Brian K. Zahra
Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth M. Welch
Kyra H. Bolden
Kimberly A. Thomas
Noah P. Hood,
Justices
Order
June 12, 2026
SC: 169060
COA: 366536
Van Buren CC: 2021-023355-FC
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
TIAH DESHON-JUANITA SUTTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2025 judgment
of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded
that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
HOOD, J. (dissenting).
With respect, I would grant oral argument on the application for leave to appeal to
clarify the articulation requirement for within-guidelines sentences after People v Posey,
512 Mich 317 (2023). I would deny the application as it relates to the remaining issues.
I question whether the trial court’s pronouncement of sentence actually complies
with the requirements of Posey. Put differently, it is unclear whether the court adequately
explained how the justifications it identified supported the specific sentence it imposed.
On this record, I believe that defendant’s burden under Posey to rebut the presumption of
proportionality is, in practical terms, a burden to disprove a justification that does not exist
in the record. See Posey, 512 Mich at 359 (opinion by BOLDEN, J.) (holding that “the
defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that their within-guidelines sentence is
unreasonable or disproportionate”); see also id. at 361 (CAVANAGH, J., concurring) and id.
at 390-391 (WELCH, J., concurring). That is because the trial court’s pronouncement lacks
a rationale tethering the chosen sentence to the offense and the offender.
In his partial dissent below, Judge BORRELLO framed the issue concisely. He
observed that the trial court “imposed a sentence that aligns with the sentencing guidelines

-- 1 of 2 --

I, Elizabeth Kingston-Miller, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 12, 2026
a0609
2
Clerk
but failed to provide a rationale specifically addressing the proportionality of the sentence
or the reasons for its relative merit compared to alternative sentences.” People v Sutton,
unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 31, 2025 (Docket
No. 366536) (BORRELLO, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), p 2. As a result, he
concluded:
In this matter, the trial court’s omission of a clear justification of the
proportionality of its sentence precludes comprehensive appellate analysis.
Consequently, I would remand the matter for resentencing, with a
requirement that the trial court provide a detailed explanation to facilitate an
informed review of the sentence, irrespective of whether the trial court opts
for the same or a different sentence. [Id.]
Judge BORRELLO’s concern highlights a possible gap in our proportionality framework—
specifically for within-guidelines sentences. This concern exposes an issue potentially left
open by Posey. I would grant oral argument on the application to further explore this issue.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial order.

-- 2 of 2 --