PEOPLE OF MI V TIMOTHY LLOYD CHRISTENSON

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
PEOPLE OF MI V TIMOTHY LLOYD CHRISTENSON
Docket No. 378806
LC No. 74-000002-FC
Michelle M. Rick
Presiding Judge
Philip P. Mariani
Matthew S. Ackerman
Judges
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
The emergency motion for modification of release decision is DENIED. The trial court
shall resentence defendant no later than January 12, 2026, as scheduled, and sooner if at all possible for
the parties and the trial court. The trial court shall expedite the transmission of the judgment of sentence
on resentencing to the Michigan Department of Corrections.
This order has immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
Rick, M., would GRANT the emergency motion for modification of release decision. This is an injustice.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on June 7, 1974, at age 20, following a jury trial in
Montcalm County. Both the prosecutor and defense agreed by way of stipulated order presented to the
trial court on or about December 22, 2025, that this defendant should be released on a personal
recognizance bond (with conditions) pending resentencing. Resentencing is currently scheduled for
January 12, 2026. This extraordinary stipulation was made in recognition that the prosecution cannot and
will not seek a sentence of life without parole for this juvenile offender. See exhibit E to Defendant’s
emergency motion, STIPULATION FOR A TERM OF YEARS SENTENCE AND TO SCHEDULE A
RESENTENCING HEARING UNDER PEOPLE V CZARNECKI AND PEOPLE V TAYLOR. The
parties admit that under People v Czarnecki, ___ Mich ___ (2025), and People v Taylor, ___ Mich ___
(2025), defendant did not originally receive a constitutional sentence of 40 to 60 years. According to the
Michigan Department of Corrections, had defendant received a constitutional sentence, his earliest date
of release would have been June 27, 1998. According to MDOC, defendant would have served the
maximum of this lawful sentence, inclusive of good time credits, on or about September 17, 2008. In my
opinion and given these unique and undisputed facts, the trial court’s refusal to grant defendant a personal
recognizance bond pending resentencing constitutes an abuse of discretion. Defendant served and
completed the lawful sentence for this crime seventeen (17) years ago.

-- 1 of 2 --

January 2, 2026

-- 2 of 2 --