Sufficiency of the evidence; Armed robbery; MCL 750.529; Uttering counterfeit notes; MCL 750.253; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; Cruel or unusual punishment

The court affirmed defendant’s convictions of armed robbery and uttering counterfeit notes and his sentence as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 15 to 30 years for each conviction, to be served concurrently. “In the course of committing a larceny, [he] assaulted the victim by pointing what the victim reasonably believed to be a firearm at the victim.” This was “sufficient to prove that defendant committed an armed robbery regardless of whether [he] pointed an actual firearm at the victim or one of the BB guns resembling actual firearms that officers recovered.” Defendant was also convicted of uttering counterfeit notes. The evidence “was plainly sufficient to establish that [he] tried to tender fake money as payment to the victim for the PS5.” He contended “that the evidence presented at his trial was not sufficient to sustain his convictions because the victim’s testimony alone was not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted.” He admitted “to an officer that he tried to buy a PS5 using ‘prop money,’ and other evidence corroborated the victim’s testimony—when officers searched defendant’s home, they found fake money and BB guns that resembled actual firearms. There was also circumstantial evidence that defendant set up the sale intending to defraud the victim because defendant orchestrated the sale using a fake Facebook account.” Thus, his convictions were “based on more than the victim’s testimony alone.” To the extent that he attempted “to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions on grounds that the victim’s testimony was not credible, that argument” was misplaced. “In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not interfere with the fact-finder’s assessment of a witness’s credibility.” Defendant offered “no argument to overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate and thus reasonable.” The court found that on “this record, and particularly in light of [his] background and the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which he was convicted,” defendant’s within-guidelines sentence of 15 to 30 years “was reasonable and proportionate, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing this sentence.” As for his “challenge to his sentence as cruel or unusual punishment, this Court has explained that ‘[a] proportionate sentence is not a cruel or unusual punishment.”’