Law360 (October 5, 2026, 8:49 PM EDT) -- The Michigan Supreme Court has taken up an appeal asking it to decide if a landmark decision that bans the inclusion of previously acquitted charges as a factor for sentencing applies retroactively even after a sentence has been appealed.

The state's high court Friday accepted an application made by Bryant Eugene Bentley Jr. that argues the court should apply its 2019 ruling in People v. Beck to previously concluded cases and hold that using the acquitted conduct during sentencing violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

The one-page order did not have any legal reasoning, but the justices invited amicus briefs from the state's Prosecuting Attorney Association and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan.

Bentley argued in a petition filed April of this year that precedent set in Beck created a new substantive constitutional rule that should apply retroactively even in cases where the defendant has already had their direct appeal decided.

Emma Lawton of the State Appellate Defender Office, representing Bentley, said the case is an opportunity for the high court to extend the constitutional protection to everyone who is currently incarcerated.

"The Michigan Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is good news," Lawton said. "In Beck, the court told us that lengthening someone's sentence based on conduct a jury acquitted them of violates the presumption of innocence. But whether that protection reaches people whose direct appeals are already finished remains an open question.

In 2011, Bentley was sentenced to 62.5 years after being found guilty of multiple crimes stemming from an argument with another man during a cocaine sale. A jury acquitted Bentley on a charge of felony murder for the death of a person who died during the crime, the petition said.

Sentencing guidelines calculated by the trial court considered the death for which Bentley was acquitted as part of the range for sentencing. Bentley objected at the time and in 2012 appealed the sentence to the Michigan Court of Appeals, the petition said.

Bentley raised an appeal on how the sentence was scored, but the direct appeal did not raise the issue of the acquitted conduct, and his direct appeal was denied. Bentley filed in 2014 a subsequent postconviction motion in trial court over the sentencing calculation, the petition said.

Bentley argued in his postconviction motion that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a specific challenge to the sentencing score on appeal. The trial court noted that both sides had properly briefed the court and that there was nothing in the record that it "should now change its mind," on sentencing, the petition said.

In 2019 the Michigan Supreme Court issued its ruling in Beck, finding that using acquitted conduct in sentencing violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Bentley filed another postconviction motion arguing that the ruling in Beck should apply retroactive relief, the petition said.

A trial court denied Bentley's second motion finding that the way in which his sentence was calculated was not "exceptional." Bentley again appealed the motion to the Michigan Court of Appeals, seeing retroactivity in Beck.

Bentley's petition argues that because the holding in Beck affects a substantive Fourteenth Amendment right, state law requires it to be retroactive. Federal rules on retroactivity also holds that because of the weight of the holding in Beck, it should be applied to all cases, not just those moving forward, the petition said.

Bentley appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court requesting that the court issue broad retroactivity and order resentencing in eligible cases. The petition noted that only a few sentences are likely to be affected and will not have an effect on the administration of justice, the petition said.

The state Supreme Court in July held that retroactivity did apply to the holding in Beck but did not create full retroactivity. The high court in July only extended retroactivity in a single case, People v. Motten, but did not extend the ruling to other incarcerated people in the state.

An attorney representing Bentley and a spokesperson for the Saginaw County Prosecutor's Office did not respond to a request for comment.

The government is represented by Russell C. Babcock of the Saginaw County Prosecutor's Office.

Bentley is represented by Emma C. Lawton of the State Appellate Defender Office.

The case is People v. Bentley, case number 169976, in the Michigan Supreme Court.

--Editing by Lief Nielsen.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.