Admission of handgun magazine evidence; Relevance; Harmless error; Sentencing; Proportionality; Below-guidelines sentence; Sentence disparity; Unlawful driving away of an automobile (UDAA)

The court held that even if the challenged evidence was not relevant, any error in admitting it was harmless as defendant failed to show prejudice. It also held that his below-guidelines sentence was proportionate. He was convicted of armed robbery, AWIGBH, UDAA, and receiving and concealing a stolen vehicle. He was sentenced to 8 to 20 years for armed robbery, 19 months to 10 years for AWIGBH, and 240 days in jail for each of the other convictions. He argued he was denied his “right to a fair trial because the jury heard inadmissible testimony that a handgun magazine was found in his possession” when he was arrested. He asserted this evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant. But the court concluded that even if it “was not relevant, any error in admitting the evidence was harmless. The testimony about the handgun magazine was brief and isolated, minimizing any potential prejudicial effect. Moreover, there was no other testimony or argument indicating that defendant used a firearm to commit his crimes. There was, however, ample testimony from the victim describing in detail that defendant held him at knifepoint during the stabbing and robbery.” The court next held that his “sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of his crimes and circumstances. [He] lured the victim into a dangerous situation by inviting him over despite barely knowing him. During the attack, he taunted” him at knifepoint while one of his friends (R) “stabbed the victim and” another friend (K) “stole the victim’s wallet, keys, and cell phone. After his arrest, defendant repeatedly lied to law enforcement about his involvement.” He contended his sentence was disproportionate because K received a shorter one even though, according to defendant, K was more culpable. But the court found that the record did not support this assertion. Further, K’s sentence reflected “that he received a benefit for having pled nolo contendere before trial. Defendant” declined the same offer and went to trial. “A defendant who rejects a plea offer and chooses to proceed to trial assumes the risk of receiving a more severe sentence following a conviction at trial.” Affirmed.