The Michigan Supreme Court has returned Ethan Crumbley's case to the state Court of Appeals for further review rather than moving it to Oakland County Circuit Court. The Sept. 17 order leaves unresolved whether Crumbley's life-without-parole sentence was imposed after adequate consideration of his claims and directs the appellate court to revisit three issues.
The order directs the Court of Appeals to address those issues, according to The Oakland Press. Jaqueline Ouvry, Crumbley's attorney with the State Appellate Defender Office, said the remand gives the appeals court another opportunity to examine the case. Crumbley pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life without parole after entering his plea at 16.
Crumbley was 15 when he opened fire at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021, killing four students and shooting seven other people, according to details reported by the outlet. He was charged with four counts of first-degree murder, terrorism, multiple counts of assault with intent to murder and weapons offenses before pleading guilty in October 2022 to all 24 crimes he faced. He is incarcerated at Oaks Correctional Facility in Manistee.
What Crumbley Is Arguing
The unresolved issues center on how Crumbley's Miller hearing and guilty plea affected his sentence and appellate rights. He argues that his trial attorney was ineffective in preparing and supervising an expert witness for the hearing, which is required before a young offender can receive life without parole. He also contends that statements he made during sentencing were improperly treated as a waiver of his right to challenge the sentence and that prosecutors did not adequately support a life-without-parole sentence.
What Michigan precedent says about Miller hearings
A separate 2018 Michigan Supreme Court decision, People v. Skinner, identified five factors courts must consider at a Miller hearing, including the possibility of rehabilitation, according to a State Appellate Defender Office brief. Skinner involved a different defendant and sentencing proceeding, so it provides context for how Michigan courts evaluate rehabilitation evidence but does not by itself resolve Crumbley's separate claim about his trial lawyer's performance.
Crumbley also argues that he would have had a direct appeal as a matter of right if he had gone to trial rather than pleaded guilty. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected his appeal in 2025, finding no merit, while Oakland County Circuit Judge Kwame Rowe rejected his effort in 2024 to withdraw his guilty plea and his claims that the sentence was invalid. The Supreme Court's remand means those issues will receive further appellate consideration rather than ending with the earlier rulings.
Testimony From His Miller Hearing
During Crumbley's 2023 Miller hearing, forensic psychologist Colin King testified that Crumbley is plagued with psychosis and other mental illnesses. King told the court that Crumbley's brain would not reach full maturity for about 10 years and identified what he called a distinct possibility for Crumbley's rehabilitation. Crumbley is now 20 years old.
The legal framework behind these hearings traces to a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that mandatory life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional for crimes committed before age 18, a decision the Michigan Supreme Court later extended, applying Miller hearing protections to people who committed their crimes at age 20 or younger, according to Bolts. Separately, a 2018 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found that withholding certain disciplinary and good-time credits from juvenile homicide offenders amounted to an unconstitutional ex post facto law, according to the State Appellate Defender Office. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that ruling, finding the challenged law subjected juvenile offenders to harsher punishment than what existed at the time of their crimes, and remanded the case for what the court called “expeditious relief.”
Parents Convicted, Sentenced Separately
James and Jennifer Crumbley, Ethan's parents, were each convicted in 2024 of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for not adequately securing the firearm used in the shooting and for failing to address their son's mental health issues. Both were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison, according to the BBC. Jennifer Crumbley's conviction was described as the first time a parent in the United States had been held criminally responsible for a mass attack committed by their child, according to the University of Miami Law Review.
The shooting killed Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana and Justin Shilling, while six other students and a teacher were wounded, according to NPR. Michigan's juvenile-sentencing framework generally entitles teenagers convicted of first-degree murder to a hearing where their attorney can argue for a shorter term and a chance at parole, though Crumbley's own path through that system remains contested years later.
With the case now back before the Court of Appeals, both sides are expected to file additional briefs and appear for oral argument in the coming months, though no schedule has been made public. The outcome will determine whether Crumbley's life-without-parole sentence stands as originally imposed or faces further legal challenge.
