Whether defendant’s convictions & sentences should be vacated because the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts by finding him guilty of armed & unarmed robbery

The court held that because juries may reach inconsistent verdicts, defendant was not entitled to relief. “Moreover, the jury’s verdicts were not inherently inconsistent.” The jury could have convicted him of armed robbery as an aider and abettor, while convicting him of unarmed robbery as a principal. He also did not meet his burden to establish juror confusion. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit carjacking, carjacking, and felony-firearm. The trial court vacated convictions of unarmed robbery and conspiracy to commit unarmed robbery. Defendant argued that “all of his convictions and sentences should be vacated because the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts by finding him guilty of both armed and unarmed robbery.” The jury was polled after delivering its verdict. Contrary to his argument on appeal, the exchange between the court and juror-M did not establish juror confusion. Nor did the remaining claims. Specifically, at sentencing, defense counsel stated that when the verdict was read, M “was crying, and when polled, her response was halted. Then she said her answer was yes, ‘[b]ased on the facts.’ Defense counsel later asked her why she was crying, and [M] said it was irrelevant to the trial. However, defendant asserted that he met the boyfriend of [M] in jail, who said that [M] came home from defendant’s trial and cried for days because she felt pushed, bullied, and forced to convict defendant. Defense counsel requested that the sheriff’s deputy interview [M] and her boyfriend.” The trial court denied “counsel’s motion to adjourn sentencing, as well as the request for further inquiry into the juror issue.” This did not establish juror confusion, particularly because M told “counsel that she was crying during the verdicts because of something irrelevant to the trial. Regardless, defendant has not established a plain error affecting his substantial rights because” he could not establish prejudice. “After the jury delivered its verdicts, the trial court entered an order vacating the convictions of conspiracy to commit unarmed robbery and unarmed robbery.” Thus, the court held that he “suffered no prejudice as a result of the jury verdicts of guilty for both armed robbery and unarmed robbery because the unarmed robbery conviction was subsequently vacated.”