Sufficiency of the evidence of defendant’s identity as the perpetrator; Sentencing; Reasonableness challenge to a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; Sentencing as a habitual offender; People v Burkett; Cruel or unusual punishment; People v Stovall

Holding that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, and rejecting his challenges to his within-guidelines sentences, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences. He was convicted of armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, and unlawful imprisonment. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 40 to 80 years. The court first concluded that, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and drawing all inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury verdict,” sufficient evidence was presented for a rational fact-finder to find that he committed the crimes. Victim-M’s “testimony established that early in the morning on [6/1/21], a man entered her apartment wearing black pants, black hooded shirt, black ski mask, and black Nike tennis shoes with a white ‘swoosh.’ The man threatened her with a gun, demanded the PIN to her debit card, tied her with a rope, put her in the closet, and threatened to harm her if she moved. After he left, she discovered that her purse and her debit card were missing. The record” further showed that on the same morning, a man tried to use M’s “debit card to withdraw money from ATMs at three” gas stations. The stations’ security footage showed that the man trying to use M’s “debit card was driving a red Ford Flex. Although police later stopped defendant while he was driving a rented white BMW, [he] admitted that he owned a red Ford Flex. In addition, when [he] was stopped in the white BMW, police discovered a black and white Nike shoe in the back seat consistent with the shoes worn by the man in the security camera footage. When defendant’s red Ford Flex was located, there was a shoe box in the car for a pair of black and white Nike shoes. Moreover, DNA testing of the rope that was used to tie [M] strongly indicated that defendant’s DNA was present on the rope.” Turning to his sentencing challenges, the court noted that due to his status as a “habitual felony offender, MCL 769.12(1)(a) required a minimum sentence of at least 25 years.” It concluded that his sentences were “proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances and the characteristics of the offense and the offender, and” thus reasonable. It also rejected his cruel or unusual punishment claim.