Defendant had been befriended by a family. Defendant had been in their home on at
least two occasions. It was from this contact with the family that he decided to
later invade and rob the house. In further aggravation of the circumstances, this
home invasion of an occupied dwelling occurred within 21 days after Defendant had
been before the court on two other criminal matters and he was being considered for
Holmes Youthful Trainee status.
Specifically, at the plea hearing in the first two cases, the trial court expressed
its intent to refer defendant, who turned 19 years old the day after the hearing,
for HYTA consideration. Three weeks later, while on bond awaiting sentencing, defendant
invaded Veena Jindal's home. Defendant later acknowledged that Jindal's son had befriended
him, providing him with a ride to school every day and helping him with his homework.
The Jindals twice had defendant to their home for dinner. Apparently using his knowledge
of the Jindal home, defendant and an accomplice entered the home without permission
in the middle of the night with the intent to commit larceny, terrifying Jindal's
20–year–old daughter, who hid in a closet for 15 minutes as defendant and his accomplice
ransacked the home. Months later, the Jindal family continued to experience fear
living in their home.
The defense contends that defendant was a follower rather than a leader. ...
Further, defendant committed the home invasion while on bond, a mere 21 days after
he was offered possible youthful-trainee status for (two) less serious crimes and
a mere 17 days after a lengthy discussion with the probation officer regarding the
significance of the youthful-trainee program for his future. These facts establish
far more than an uncharacteristic lack of maturity or reflection by a young offender.
Rather, they show a calculated effort by defendant both to exploit a family that
had befriended him and to escalate his criminal activity in defiance of the potential
lenient treatment offered to him for his other crimes. Defendant's commission of
the more serious home-invasion offense while on bond also reveals that his five earlier
felonies were not simply uncharacteristic acts of immaturity. In these circumstances,
a reasonable and principled basis on which to grant youthful-trainee status did not
exist. (Underline and bold added)
Not All Are Eligible Who Meet the Age Requirement. Thus the Court of Appeals has
held that the discretion of the trial court is not total. They have placed limitations
on the persons who may be considered for the Holmes Youthful Trainee status and held
where the facts establish and show a pattern of criminal activity, even when caught
and charged on prior felonies, these type of facts MUST lead the trial court to conclude
there is no ‘reasonable and principled basis on which to grant youthful-trainee status’
What Happens When One Successfully Completes the Program?
MCL 762.14 - Discharge of individual and dismissal of proceedings upon final release;
assignment as youthful trainee not conviction; compliance with sex offenders registration;
proceedings closed to public inspection; inspection by courts, state departments,
and law enforcement personnel.
(1) If consideration of an individual as a youthful trainee is not terminated and
the status of youthful trainee is not revoked as provided in section 12 of this chapter,
upon final release of the individual from the status as youthful trainee, the court
shall discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings.
(2) An assignment of an individual to the status of youthful trainee as provided
in this chapter is not a conviction for a crime and, except as provided in subsection
(3), the individual assigned to the status of youthful trainee shall not suffer a
civil disability or loss of right or privilege following his or her release from
that status because of his or her assignment as a youthful trainee.
(3) An individual assigned to youthful trainee status before October 1, 2004 for
a listed offense enumerated in section 2 of the sex offenders registration act, 1994
PA 295, MCL 28.722, is required to comply with the requirements of that act.
(4) Unless the court enters a judgment of conviction against the individual for the
criminal offense under section 12 of this chapter, all proceedings regarding the
disposition of the criminal charge and the individual's assignment as youthful trainee
shall be closed to public inspection, but shall be open to the courts of this state,
the department of corrections, the family independence agency, law enforcement personnel
and, beginning January 1, 2005, prosecuting attorneys for use only in the performance
of their duties.