Sufficiency of the evidence of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine; MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); “Deliver or delivery”; Conspiring to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine; MCL 750.157a; Intent; Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Milbourn; Cruel & unusual punishment

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine and conspiracy to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine. Also, his sentences did not violate the principle of proportionality. Finally, his concurrent 46 to 480-month second or subsequent offense sentences were not cruel and unusual under the U.S. Constitution. The prosecution presented sufficient evidence to find him guilty of three counts of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. First, it presented sufficient evidence he delivered cocaine on three different occasions. Second, it presented sufficient evidence “the deliveries each contained less than 50 grams of cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine.” Finally, it presented sufficient evidence that he knew the substance was cocaine. R “testified that defendant repeatedly agreed to sell her cocaine.” I testified that defendant told her R “was coming to the apartment complex to buy cocaine.” I further testified that “she came away from a conversation with defendant with the understanding that she was supposed to give [R] cocaine in exchange for money.” Defendant brought cocaine over to I’s apartment that same day. He also argued “there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find him guilty of conspiring to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt.” But there was sufficient evidence he conspired with I to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. “Finally, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that defendant and [I] possessed the specific intent to combine to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine.” Defendant claimed that “the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to prove all four convictions beyond a reasonable doubt because the bulk of the testimony from which the jury could have found him guilty on each count came from” R and I. “According to defendant, both women were self-motivated to implicate defendant in the deliveries.” However, the jury was aware of their potential motivations. R testified that she worked as a confidential informant here in order to work off prior drug charges. I testified that “she had criminal charges pending against her at the time of defendant’s trial and that she had been promised lesser charges in exchange for testifying. The jury was free to determine the credibility of each witness’s testimony and the weight to give each piece of evidence.” Affirmed.