The Alleged Robbery

It is reported that the defendant and two other men entered a gas station convenience store, and began to take things without paying. When the store clerk confronted them, the defendant approached him and began threatening him and waiving a gun at him. The clerk called the police, but the defendant and the other men left before they arrived. They were apprehended shortly thereafter and taken into custody. The defendant was charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and armed robbery and was convicted by a jury. He then filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus, challenging his convictions.

Jury Instructions on Lesser Included Offenses

The defendant asserted, among other things, that the trial court violated his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by denying his request for a jury instruction on felonious assault and brandishing a firearm in public, which he asserted were lesser included offenses of armed robbery. He further contended that the evidence offered at trial supported his position that it was a lesser included offense.

The court found the defendant’s claims unavailing, however. The court explained that the Constitution does not demand that state courts instruct juries on crimes that are not lesser included offenses of the charged offense. It further elaborated that a court’s failure to instruct a jury on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case was not such a fundamental error that it automatically resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s petition.

Meet with a Skilled Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the prosecution lacks the evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt in a theft case, it may attempt to convict them of a lesser included offense. If you are accused of robbery or another crime, it is prudent to meet with an attorney to discuss your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek the best legal outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was in charge of handling billing for her husband’s trucking company. In 2011, she began submitting false invoices to a factoring company for work that was never performed. The factoring company paid in excess of $3.3 million for fake invoices from 2011 to 2018. After the factoring company uncovered the scheme, the police arrested the defendant and charged her with multiple counts of using false pretenses to obtain money. She pleaded guilty and agreed to pay restitution in the amount of $3.3 million. The court sentenced her to 9 to 20 years imprisonment, which was an upward departure from the top end of the minimum sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in upwardly departing from the guidelines range.

Evaluating the Reasonableness of a Sentence

Michigan appellate courts review sentences that deviate from the applicable guidelines range under a reasonableness standard. The Michigan Supreme Court has stated that the proper question when assessing a sentence for reasonableness is whether the trial court violated the principle of proportionality in imposing the sentence and therefore committed an abuse of discretion. The principle of proportionality dictates that a sentence imposed by a court must be proportionate to the severity of the circumstances surrounding the crime and the offender.

In other words, the key inquiry is not whether the sentence departs from the guidelines but whether it is reflective of the seriousness of the crime. When the defendant’s behavior was so egregious that the standard sentence fails to reflect the severity, it may warrant an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. In the subject case, the appellate court noted that the trial court appropriately determined that the value of the lost property did not adequately reflect the severity of the underlying offense. Thus, the court affirmed the sentence.

Meet with a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

While in some instances entering a guilty plea can result in a reduced sentence, that is not always the case, and penalties for theft crimes are often severe regardless of whether the offenders admit guilt. If you are accused of a theft crime, it is advisable to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and help you to pursue the best result available under the circumstances. You can contact Mr. Bernstein via the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.