You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

People of Michigan v. Aimee Louise Sword

Citation: Not availableDocket: 142553

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; September 26, 2011; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court, in an order dated September 26, 2011, addressed case number SC: 142553 involving petitioner Aimee Louise Sword. The court previously instructed the prosecuting attorney to respond to Sword's application for leave to appeal a December 17, 2010, decision from the Court of Appeals. After considering the prosecutor’s response, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case back to the Court of Appeals for further evaluation concerning the legality of imposing lifetime monitoring as part of Sword's sentence, specifically in relation to the fact that the complainant was 14 years old. The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on all other issues presented, indicating that the court found no merit in those remaining questions. The order was certified by Clerk Corbin R. Davis.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Leave to Appeal on Other Issues

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on all other issues, indicating a lack of merit in the additional questions presented by the petitioner.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on all other issues presented, indicating that the court found no merit in those remaining questions.

Remand for Further Evaluation

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to further assess the legality of imposing lifetime monitoring as part of the defendant's sentence.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court decided to remand the case back to the Court of Appeals for further evaluation concerning the legality of imposing lifetime monitoring as part of Sword's sentence, specifically in relation to the fact that the complainant was 14 years old.