The three-member board convened in Montgomery to hear 38 cases on Sept. 17, 2026, issuing a mix of denials, conditional paroles and pardons; the meeting included reviews of delinquent and revocation files and adjourned at 2:08 p.m.

Following testimony and advocacy, the board voted unanimously to parole Arasmo Charles Flores from his state sentence effective Nov. 13, 2026, to allow him to begin serving a consecutive federal sentence; the board noted dual‑supervision logistics and release planning needs.

We look at the laws and criteria driving parole board decisions and what can be done to make them a meaningful mechanism for decarceration

Flint — Hundreds of convicted killers could be eligible for resentencing and eventually parole following a Michigan Supreme Court ruling that has short-staffed prosecutors concerned they won't be able to handle the extra caseload while struggling to clear already backlogged dockets. In a 5-2 ruling on April 10, the high court's majority found that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for first-degree murder is an "unconstitutionally cruel punishment" for 19- and 20-year-olds because their brains aren't fully developed. There are 582 defendants whose cases are affected by the Supreme Court's decision, with about 400 in Wayne County, according to the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan. The ruling requires prosecutors to file motions to uphold the life sentences within 90 days; otherwise, the defendants will be resentenced to a term of years, which opens the opportunity for an eventual release back into the community. Supporters of the ruling agreed with Justice Elizabeth Welch, who wrote in the court's majority opinion that a mandatory life sentence for murder defendants who were 19 or 20 years old at the time of their crimes "does not allow for consideration of the mitigating factors of youth or the potential for rehabilitation is a grossly disproportionate punishment." But critics, including relatives of murder victim Montel Wright, said they disagreed with the court's finding that 19- and 20-year-old killers shouldn't serve life prison terms. Montario Taylor walked into Wright's Flint home on Oct. 24, 2016, and fired multiple shots at him before leaving the house, returning and pulling the trigger several more times, according to witnesses who testified in his trial. Wright, 45, died after suffering eight gunshot wounds, with bullets penetrating his body from the front and back. Taylor, who was 20 when he committed the killing, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. "Not only did (Taylor) shoot my brother; he walked outside and then went back in to shoot him again," said the victim's sister, Vhiranda Brown, who has cared for her brother's 16-year-old autistic son since the killing. "He knew exactly what he was doing." In addition to the question of responsibility, prosecutors said the court's ruling will put them further behind on dockets that are already severely backlogged, straining offices that are experiencing staffing problems, while reopening wounds for victims' families. Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said he hasn't decided whether to file motions to fight the resentencing for Taylor or any of the other 43 cases in his office that were affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. Leyton called the court's ruling "an unfunded mandate." "We're just recovering from the COVID backlog, and I don't know how I'm supposed to take on these new cases, because I just don't have the staffing for it," Leyton said. "The court is telling us we need to do all this extra work, but not providing any money for it. There's so much still to do. I haven't made decisions on any of these cases yet. "This is terrible for the public because it’s going to drain our resources," Leyton said. "There’s a very real possibility our resources will get diverted from carjackings and armed robberies to deal with this. The ruling is going to cause all sorts of problems, and prosecutors are already in a hole. This just digs us a deeper hole." The Michigan State Court Appellate Defender Office, which represented Taylor, didn't respond to multiple requests for comment. But in its brief last year to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Appellate Defender Office wrote: "Mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole is cruel or unusual for 18-year-olds because they are less culpable and more amenable to rehabilitation than adults whose brains are fully developed … at 20 years old(.) Montario’s brain was indistinguishable from an 18-year-old’s brain for the purposes of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation." J. Dee Brooks, the Midland County prosecutor and president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, said the Supreme Court ruling has prosecutors' offices scrambling to figure out how to deal with the expected influx of new cases, particularly in Wayne County. “We’ve been talking a lot about this since the decision was announced, and we’re really concerned," Brooks said. "Prosecutor’s offices are already understaffed, and indigent defense is already underserved." Brooks said he has no idea how Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy's office is going to deal with this situation, given that Worthy has "dozens of unfilled assistant prosecutor positions." "The worst part will be contacting the victims' families, and telling them the person who killed their loved ones may be resentenced," he said. "Prosecutors will take the families' wishes into consideration when deciding whether to pursue the life without parole sentences." The cases that triggered resentencings The Supreme Court ruling involved the cases of Taylor and Andrew Czarnecki, who was 19 years old in 2013 when he killed and burned the body of Gavino Rodriguez, a gay man, in Detroit. Czarnecki's conviction in 2018 was hailed by then Attorney General-Elect Dana Nessel, who at the time was president of the Fair Michigan Foundation, which helps Michigan law enforcement agencies and prosecutors solve crimes against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. The Michigan State Court Defender Appellate Office also represented Czarnecki in the landmark case and did not respond to multiple phone calls for comment. Nessel's office did not reply to a request for comment. The Michigan Supreme Court ruling was applauded by the Sentencing Project, a nationwide group whose research into youth crime was cited in the court's decision. "A wealth of brain science research makes clear that emerging adults are akin to teenagers under 18 — more impulsive, more easily influenced by peers, and also capable of remarkable growth and rehabilitation," the Sentencing Project's attorney, Liz Komar, said in a statement following the ruling. “Young people are especially deserving of second chances and individualized sentencing." Following the Supreme Court's decision, Worthy released a statement, saying it was "tragically ironic that this ruling occurred during  National Victims’ Rights Week. In the course of a week, the Michigan Supreme Court has ordered the resentencing of hundreds of defendants who committed the most serious offense possible: the first-degree murder of another human.  "The MSC has given us six months to review over 400 Wayne County cases. Justice cannot be fair with this timeline. We intend to be thoughtful in evaluating these cases. We must review trial transcripts, MDOC (Department of Corrections) records, medical and psychological records of each of the defendants, review the documents from each of the defense lawyers and find and contact each and every one of the affected families to inform them of this decision," Worthy said. While Worthy said the Supreme Court seems "to care about the plight of victims and the survivor families," her office is "going to need a substantial amount of extra resources to be able to follow the dictates of the Court and do the right thing. The timeline is not realistic.” Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Maria Miller told The Detroit News in an email that it would be "premature" to comment on whether Worthy plans to file motions seeking to uphold the life sentences of any of the 400 Wayne County defendants whose cases were impacted by the Supreme Court ruling. Leyton said he hasn't yet contacted any of the victims' families, including the relatives of Wright. "There's just so much to try to get done after this, and contacting families is one of them," Leyton said. "But we have to make decisions on these cases first." Shironda Wiley, another of Wright's sisters, said she wasn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling that cited the case of her brother's murderer until The News contacted her. She said she doesn't think Taylor, the man who killed her brother, should get a new trial. "At the end of the day, if you're 19 or 20, you know what you're capable of," Wiley said. "My brother didn't bother anybody, and now his son doesn't have a father; my sister is a single parent taking care of my brother's son. That's what (Taylor) did to our family." Strain on resources? Brooks, the Midland County prosecutor and PAAM president, said the Supreme Court decision will further stretch the resources of an already strained indigent defense system. "This is going to cause a bunch of new motions and new hearings, and indigent caseloads are already too heavy," he said. "... And prosecutors already have a much higher caseload of indigent cases than is allowed by the Michigan Indigent Defense Council. According to the Michigan Indigent Defense Council's standards, "defender organizations, county offices, public defenders, assigned counsel, and contract attorneys should not exceed the caseload levels adopted by the American Council of Chief Defenders — 150 felonies or 400 non-traffic misdemeanors per attorney per year." A 2022 PAAM study of 28 Michigan prosecutors' offices found staffing shortages in all of the agencies that participated. "One hundred percent of the ... participating counties are understaffed; 11 participating counties were more than 10 attorneys short of the optimal level; another eight participating counties were understaffed by four to eight attorneys; (and) the prosecutor staffing shortage across all participating counties totaled 293 attorneys," the study said. "Understaffed prosecutor offices are not merely a problem that is relevant to the prosecutors themselves," the study concluded. "Like any overloaded system, the prosecutor understaffing situation results in cases taking longer to make their way through the courts. Thus, justice is delayed for victims of crime, and defendants have not been held responsible for their crimes. Further, defendants remain in an uncertain situation for a longer period of time." Scott Pickerd and Mark Kelsey are among the defendants whose cases are affected by the Supreme Court's decision. Pickerd was 20 and Kelsey 19 in 1992 when they and two other members of a group of friends called "The Family" killed G. Christopher Thompson. The victim, the son of a Kent County Sheriff's Office lieutenant, was shot eight times in Oakhill Cemetery in Plainville Township in Kent County, before the group tossed his body in a trash bin miles away. Pickerd and Kelsey were convicted of first-degree murder, with their accomplices convicted of lesser crimes. Neither Pickerd nor Kelsey has new cases or attorneys listed in the Kent County court system. Merrilyn Thompson, the victim's mother, told The News she was angered by the news of the Supreme Court decision. "I wasn't too happy about it, I'll tell you," Thompson said. "I don't know what to think right now. I'm still waiting to hear back from (the Kent County Prosecutor's Office). I don't know if I want them to fight (the two inmates being resentenced) or not. I'll wait until the prosecutors contact us, and we'll see." The Supreme Court ruling follows a 2022 decision by the state's high court to require resentencing for 18-year-olds who were sentenced to life in prison following murder convictions. The state court's rulings expanded a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Miller v. Alabama, that held mandatory life sentences for first-degree murder defendants under the age of 18 was a form of cruel and unusual punishment because youth are less culpable and have greater capacity for rehabilitation.  Leyton said his office had 26 cases that were affected by the Michigan Supreme Court's 2022 decision requiring the resentencing of 18-year-olds. "I still haven't completed all my Miller v. Alabama cases," Leyton said. "I have no idea how I'm going to handle all these new cases. You're talking about thousands of hours that's going to take staffing that we simply don't have." ghunter@detroitnews.com (313) 222-2134 @GeorgeHunter_DN This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Hundreds of Michigan killers face resentencing, even parole as prosecutors bemoan caseload

A House committee substitute combining measures on sentencing clarity passed after debate about whether it increases mandatory minimums; supporters said it provides victims and communities clearer information about parole eligibility and time served.

Several criminal justice reform organizations want new parole guidelines under consideration by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles to use a scoring system that puts more weight into an applicant’s rehabilitation efforts than the original crime. The proposed guidelines, made available to the public in the latter part of May after years of delays, […]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Members of the Joint Prison Oversight Committee raised concerns Wednesday over a set of proposed scoring guidelines from the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. Some lawmakers cited “corrupted” scoring data on which the guidelines were supposedly developed, as well as what they considered to be omissions in scoring criteria and a […] The post New parole guidelines draw skepticism among Alabama lawmakers over scoring, data issues appeared first on Alabama Daily News.

Legislators at a meeting of the state’s Joint Prison Oversight Committee Wednesday expressed mixed feelings about proposed parole guideline changes from the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles earlier this month. But lawmakers said they believed the committee’s discussion of the issue brought the Legislature’s attention to it and eventually compelled the parole board to […]

A criminal justice reform group held a rally at the Alabama Statehouse Tuesday urging lawmakers to pass bills overhauling parole. About 20 supporters attended the gathering led by Alabamians for Fair Justice Coalition and the Alabama Justice Initiative urging lawmakers to pass two bills: SB 157, sponsored by Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, which would […]

Delays in the parole process can effectively transform "life with the possibility of parole" into a de facto life sentence without parole.

Pardon and Parole Board establishes streamlined commutation docket for misdemeanor-reclassified offenders.

Lawmakers debated LD 1941 to reestablish parole, focusing on retroactivity, victim impacts and how parole decisions would interact with probation and court orders; Representative Lee moved to pass as amended but the motion failed on a 3–8 roll call.

The Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary held a work session on LD 1941, a bill to reestablish parole in Maine. Sponsor Rep. Nina Milliken outlined membership, eligibility, and revocation changes; members asked for corrected amendment text and tabled the bill to allow further drafting and review.

The Senate approved an en bloc list of nominees and confirmed individual appointments: Carolyn Schulte to the Board of Parole (and subsequently as chair), Peter County to the State Board of Regents, and Steve Lacy to the State Board of Regents; recorded roll calls were reported for each confirmation.

New law allows parole eligibility for some felons convicted under age 25.

Chief Calvert and District Attorney emphasize victim representation in emotional crime ceremony.

The House Corrections & Institutions Committee heard Sen. Joe Major and parole board director Mary Jane Ainsworth explain Senate amendments that strengthen board training, update parole-board composition, create a pilot for external legal counsel funded by carryover and new appropriations, and clarify victim-notification rules with an opt-out for parole cases; no committee vote was taken.

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee reviewed draft language for H.559 to create a parole-board legal-counsel pilot to provide annual training and on-call legal advice; members agreed the AGO, parole board and Agency of Human Services should coordinate contracting but debated whether $25,000 is sufficient and whether to seek $50,000–$75,000 in additional funds.