If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 21, 2024

v No. 351557

Lenawee Circuit Court

DEMETRIUS FITZGERALD JENKINS, LC No. 18-019226-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 351558

Lenawee Circuit Court

DEMETRIUS FITZGERALD JENKINS, LC No. 18-019227-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and O’BRIEN and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance causing death, 

MCL 750.317a, arising from the death of Milton Reynolds, and delivery of a controlled substance 

causing death arising from the death of Joshua Torres. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent 

terms of 225 months’ to 80 years’ imprisonment. Defendant challenged his convictions and 

sentences on appeal, and we affirmed. People v Jenkins, unpublished per curiam opinion of the 

Court of Appeals, issued July 1, 2021 (Docket Nos. 351557; 351558).

Defendant sought leave to appeal from the Michigan Supreme Court and the matter was 

held in abeyance. People v Jenkins, 967 NW2d 622 (2022). In November 2023, in lieu of granting 
-2-

leave to appeal, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment “to the extent that it is inconsistent with” 

its recent decision in People v Posey, 512 Mich 317; 1 NW3d 101 (2023), but denied leave to 

appeal in “all other respects.” People v Jenkins, 997 NW2d 210 (2023). The relevant issue 

addressed in both this case and in Posey was a sentencing issue, i.e., whether a within-guidelines 

sentence may be reviewed for reasonableness. In this case, defendant had argued that his minimum 

sentences were disproportionate. This Court held that because the trial court rendered a sentence 

within the applicable guidelines range, there was no scoring error, and defendant did not claim that 

the trial court relied on inaccurate information, the minimum sentence must be affirmed under 

MCL 769.34(10). Jenkins, unpub op at 12.

In Posey, however, the Michigan Supreme Court held that “appellate courts must review 

all sentences for reasonableness, which requires the reviewing court to consider whether the 

sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the matter.” Posey, 512 Mich at 352. The Posey 

Court held that the proportionality test to be applied is outlined in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 

630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Id. at 355. The Posey Court concluded that “the portion of MCL 

769.34(10) that requires appellate affirmation of within-guidelines sentences that are based on 

accurate information without scoring errors is unconstitutional,” and therefore, severed. Id. at 352, 

359-360. But, the Posey Court held, “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that their 

within-guidelines sentence is unreasonable or disproportionate . . . .” Id. at 359. So, a withinguidelines sentence is presumed to be proportionate, but the defendant may overcome that 

presumption; thus, a within-guidelines sentence is subject to appellate review. Id. Accordingly, 

in Posey, because this Court had affirmed the defendant’s within-guidelines sentence on the 

ground that review was precluded by MCL 769.34(10), the Supreme Court reversed that part of 

this Court’s opinion addressing sentencing and remanded for review of the within-guidelines 

sentence for reasonableness, applying a “nonbinding rebuttable presumption of proportionality.” 

Id. at 360. On remand of this case, we must do the same because we also affirmed defendant’s 

sentences on the ground that review of his within-guidelines sentences was precluded. Jenkins, 

unpub op at 12.

As stated in Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636, the proportionality test to be applied in appellate 

review of sentences for reasonableness requires that sentences “be proportionate to the seriousness 

of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” The Milbourn Court explained:

When the legislative scheme for criminal sentencing is viewed across the 

spectrum of crimes from misdemeanor traffic violations to cold-blooded murders, 

two aspects are immediately clear. First, the Legislature has endeavored to provide 

the most severe punishments for those who commit the most serious crimes. The 

crime of murder, for example, is punishable by a longer term than is the lesser 

included crime of assault. Second, offenders with prior criminal records are 

likewise subject to harsher punishment than those with no prior convictions, as 

reflected in the general and specific habitual offender provisions of the penal 

statutes. These two elements combine to form what might be called the “principle 

of proportionality.” [Id. at 650.]

In People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 263; 666 NW2d 231 (2003), our Supreme Court summarized 

that “the more egregious the offense, and the more recidivist the criminal, the greater the 

punishment.” And in People v Boykin, 510 Mich 171, 183; 987 NW2d 58 (2022), our Supreme 
-3-

Court explained that “[a]n appropriate sentence should give consideration to the reformation of the 

offender, the protection of society, the discipline of the offender, and the deterrence of others from 

committing the same offense.” See also People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 459-460; 902 NW2d 

327 (2017).

In his appeal, defendant challenges his sentences as disproportionate and unreasonable. 

Because the trial court sentenced defendant within the guidelines’ recommended range, a 

nonbinding rebuttable presumption of proportionality exists. Posey, 512 Mich at 360. And 

defendant bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Id. at 359. When reviewing a 

sentence for reasonableness, this Court’s role is to determine whether the trial court abused its 

discretion by violating the principle of proportionality in rendering its sentence. Steanhouse, 500 

Mich at 459-460.

Defendant’s convictions arise from selling what was supposed to be cocaine; four men 

snorted it and two died from a heroin overdose and two became ill but survived. Defendant argues 

that his sentences were unreasonable and disproportionate because his offenses were “not serious 

in the scheme of offenses of this nature” and he has potential for rehabilitation because he has a 

high school diploma. Defendant has failed to carry his burden of overcoming the presumption that 

his within-guidelines minimum sentences were disproportionate and unreasonable.

During sentencing, the trial court stated that it considered several factors in fashioning 

defendant’s sentences including the seriousness of the offense, defendant’s history, the statutory 

penalty, the principle of proportionality, the sentencing guidelines, the presentence investigation 

report (PSIR), the comments made at the sentencing hearing, the deterrence against repetition of 

this offense by defendant and others, his potential for reformation, and the protection of society. 

These are all relevant considerations. While defendant argues that his offenses were not serious, 

two people were killed by the illegal drugs that he sold them—which was not cocaine as the victims 

believed they had purchased. In other words, this is not a case where the victims knowingly 

purchased and ingested a drug that killed them; rather, the victims unknowingly purchased and 

ingested a completely different drug than the drug they believed they purchased from defendant 

and it killed them. It is mere happenstance that defendant’s drugs did not kill the two other men 

who also unknowingly ingested heroin instead of cocaine—in which case defendant would have 

faced four counts of delivery of a controlled substance causing death instead of two counts. We 

also reject defendant’s claim that the trial court did not rightfully consider his potential for 

rehabilitation. Defendant had been in prison before and, upon his release, continued to commit 

serious criminal offenses, including drug trafficking. Although defendant had a high school 

diploma, according to the PSIR, defendant had no legitimate employment or verifiable income for 

several years.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by violating the principle of 

proportionality in rendering its 225-month minimum sentences for defendant’s convictions. See 

Steanhouse, 500 Mich at 459-460. That is, defendant’s sentences are “proportionate to the 

seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” Milbourn, 435 Mich 

at 636. Defendant bore the burden of demonstrating that his within-guidelines sentences were 

disproportionate but he failed to carry his burden. See Posey, 512 Mich at 359-360. The sentences 

appropriately take into consideration “the reformation of the offender, the protection of society, 
-4-

the discipline of the offender, and the deterrence of others from committing the same offense.” 

See Boykin, 510 Mich at 183.

Affirmed.

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien

/s/ Anica Letica