Sufficiency of the evidence; Breaking & entering with intent to commit larceny; MCL 750.110; People v Toole; Larceny in a building; MCL 750.360; People v March; Aiding & abetting; MCL 767.39; People v Carines; Conspiracy; People v Mass; Sentencing; Due process; Effect of refusal to admit guilt; People v Hatchett; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Milbourn; Effect of a within guidelines sentence

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions, and that he was not entitled to resentencing. He was convicted of breaking and entering into a building with intent to commit a larceny, conspiracy to commit breaking and entering into a building with intent to commit a larceny, larceny in a building, and conspiracy to commit larceny in a building. His convictions arose from his involvement in the breaking and entering of a restaurant where his girlfriend (F) worked, and the larceny of the contents of its safe. The trial court sentenced him as an habitual offender, fourth offense, to 42 months to 15 years for each conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the court rejected his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. “Although there was no physical evidence linking defendant to the crime, the jury was entitled to draw inferences from both direct and circumstantial evidence alike.” Despite defendant’s “challenge to a lack of physical evidence, when examined in context with other evidence, both” a co-conspirator (S) and F “testified that a third man, defendant, acted as a lookout while [S] committed the theft, and that [F] picked them up shortly after the crimes were committed.” Further, the validity and import of cell phone data presented an issue for the jury to resolve. And it was apparent from the jury verdict that a conflict in the evidence “was resolved in favor of the prosecution and that the evidence reflected defendant’s involvement in the planning and commission of the crimes.” The court also rejected his claim that he was entitled to resentencing because the trial court erred by in part sentencing him based on his refusal to admit guilt, violating his right to due process. The trial court’s “own admission and a casual reading of the sentencing transcript demonstrate that [it] simply remarked on defendant’s lack of remorse. [It] neither tried to get defendant to proclaim his guilt, nor did [it] suggest leniency if” he was to do so. Finally, the court rejected his contention that his sentences were disproportionate considering his circumstances, entitling him to resentencing. “Defendant submits that several mitigating factors were not considered, including his need for mental health treatment, his failure to present a danger to the community, and his strong potential for rehabilitation. However, the factors cited by defendant are not unusual, and he failed to cite circumstances of the case which would make” his within-guidelines sentences disproportionate. Affirmed.