Bill
HB 5916
The bill imposes mandatory, fixed sentences for designated crimes by amending MCL 600.2950, removing discretionary sentencing for those offenses.
HB 5916 — Michigan 2025-2026 Session
Summary of Proposed Legislation
Purpose and intent
- The bill mandates certain mandatory sentencing for specified crimes within the Michigan Revised Judicature Act framework.
- Specifically, it amends section 2950 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2950) to establish mandatory sentencing provisions for designated offenses.
- The overarching goal is to standardize and impose fixed sentencing requirements for particular criminal offenses, reducing judicial discretion in those cases.
Key provisions and changes (as currently described)
- Amendment to MCL 600.2950 (section 2950) of the Revised Judicature Act.
- Implementation of mandatory sentencing: the bill requires a court to impose a predetermined sentence for defined crimes, rather than allowing for discretionary sentencing within statutory ranges.
- The exact offenses designated as mandatory and the corresponding sentence lengths are defined in the amended text of section 2950 (not provided in the summary). The act would specify the crime categories and the fixed terms, potentially including enhancements or aggravating circumstances tied to those offenses.
- The bill does not, in the available materials, describe ancillary sentencing options (e.g., fines, probation, or concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing) beyond the mandated term. It also does not specify whether there are exceptions, waivers, or deviations for particular circumstances (e.g., juvenile offenders, prior record, or plea agreements).
Who would be affected
- Defendants convicted of the offenses identified in the amended section 2950.
- Judges and prosecutors: judicial discretion in sentencing for those offenses would be constrained by mandatory terms.
- The Department of Corrections: would be responsible for administering the fixed sentences imposed.
- Defense counsel: would operate under the constraints of mandatory sentencing when advising clients and negotiating pleas for these offenses.
Procedural and timeline aspects
- Introduction and sponsorship: Introduced on April 29, 2026 by Rep. Tom Kuhn. Co-sponsors include Reps. Mike Hoadley, Doug Wozniak, Joe Pavlov, Alicia St. Germaine, and Will Bruck.
- Referral: Referred to the Committee on Judiciary on April 29, 2026.
- Status: Electronically reproduced and filed; first reading completed, no further action detailed in the current record.
- Effective date: Not specified in the provided material; typically, comprehensive mandatory sentencing provisions include an effective date (often days or months after enactment) and potential transition provisions for ongoing cases.
Notes and considerations
- The bill’s impact hinges on the specific offenses designated and the fixed sentence lengths. The exact text of amended MCL 600.2950 is needed to quantify the scope (which crimes) and severity (lengths, potential enhancements).
- Potential policy considerations include: reducing sentencing discretion versus ensuring proportionality and fairness, impacts on incarceration rates and corrections budgets, and implications for appellate review and trial strategy.
- Stakeholders likely to scrutinize include prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, the State Department of Corrections, and advocacy groups focused on criminal justice reform and public safety.
If you’d like, I can locate the full text of the proposed amendment to MCL 600.2950 and provide a detailed breakdown of the specific offenses and sentence lengths, as well as any proposed exceptions or transition provisions.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
