-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 8, 2015 

v No. 321334 

Wayne Circuit Court 

GERALD EUGENE DENNIS, JR., LC No. 12-008223-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: RONALYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and MARKEY and M. J. KELLY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals by right his conviction of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317. The 

trial court sentenced defendant to 16 to 30 years’ imprisonment. We affirm. 

 Defendant, his sister, Deborah Seifert, Jamill Jenkins and Jill Kramer lived together in 

Lincoln Park, Michigan. Defendant, Seifert, and Jenkins used cocaine on one particular evening, 

while Kramer went to sleep. When Kramer awoke the next morning, she found Seifert lying on 

her back, with blood in the area of her right eye and mouth. Blunt-force injuries to her head 

resulted in 10 lacerations all over her head and face. Her head had been “flattened.” Lincoln 

Park Police officers responded to the scene and gathered evidence, including a black metal bar 

covered with hair and blood they found in the backyard area of the house. Furthermore, police 

officers found a vehicle car jack, which complemented the black metal bar, in defendant’s 

bedroom. 

 At the police station, defendant gave conflicting statements to the police, initially 

claiming that Jenkins was responsible for the murder. Eventually, however, defendant admitted 

to the murder. DNA testing was conducted on various pieces of evidence, including swabs 

collected from blood found on defendant’s face and left arm. The testing revealed that while 

defendant was the overwhelming source of DNA from the samples, Seifert could not be excluded 

as a possible contributor. 

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 Defendant argues that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he 

committed second-degree murder because the evidence presented did not directly link him to the 

murder. We disagree. 
-2- 

 Claims of insufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. People v Meissner, 294 

Mich App 438, 452; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). We view the evidence in “the light most favorable to 

the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Furthermore, “a 

reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in 

support of the jury verdict.” People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). 

 To prove second-degree murder, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 

“(1) a death, (2) the death was caused by an act of the defendant, (3) the defendant acted with 

malice, and (4) the defendant did not have lawful justification or excuse for causing the death.” 

People v Smith, 478 Mich 64, 70; 731 NW2d 411 (2007). Furthermore, “identity is an element 

of every offense.” People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341, 356; 749 NW2d 753 (2008). 

“Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising therefrom may be sufficient to prove 

the elements of a crime.” People v Nelson, 234 Mich App 454, 459; 594 NW2d 114 (1999). 

 Here, the prosecution provided sufficient evidence—both direct and circumstantial—to 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt the element of identity. Defendant told police officers that he 

had committed the murder. This piece of direct evidence sufficiently establishes defendant as 

the murderer. Yet, the prosecution presented additional circumstantial evidence to tie defendant 

to the murder. Police officers found a metal bar with Seifert’s blood and hair on it in the 

backyard—a metal bar that was part of a vehicle jack that was found in defendant’s bedroom. 

The DNA from blood samples recovered from defendant’s face and left hand was potentially 

traceable to Seifert. Jenkins, on the other hand, could be dismissed as a suspect, as his clothes 

tested negative for blood. While Jenkins’s T-shirt found in the basement was bloody, analysis 

proved that it was Jenkins’s blood, and his story regarding the bloody T-shirt was consistent with 

his getting stabbed months before the night Seifert was murdered. Viewed in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, we find sufficient evidence was presented to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt all the elements of second-degree murder, including the element of identity. 

II. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT 

 Defendant argues that a 16-to-30-year sentence for a mentally- and physically-ill 

individual with no previous criminal history is cruel or unusual under the Michigan Constitution, 

and cruel and unusual under the United States Constitution. We disagree. 

 Although defense counsel requested that defendant be sentenced at the low end of the 

sentencing guidelines range, he did not specifically object that the sentence imposed was cruel 

and/or unusual. Therefore, this issue is unpreserved and our review is limited to plain error 

affecting substantial rights. People v Bowling, 299 Mich App 552, 557; 830 NW2d 800 (2013). 

 Plain error analysis requires three findings: 1) error, 2) that is plain, 3) which affects 

substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). An error affects 

substantial rights when it causes prejudice, i.e., “the error affected the outcome of the lower court 

proceedings.” Id. Once the three findings for plain error are met, “reversal is warranted only 

when the plain . . . error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an 

error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings 

independent of the defendant’s innocence.” Id. at 763 (citation and quotation marks omitted). 
-3- 

 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive bail 

shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” 

Furthermore, Article 1, Section 16 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 similarly provides that 

“[e]xcessive bail shall not be required; excessive fines shall not be imposed; cruel or unusual 

punishment shall not be inflicted; nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained.” If a 

punishment does not violate the state constitution, then it necessarily will not violate the Eighth 

Amendment. People v Benton, 294 Mich App 191, 204; 817 NW2d 599 (2011). Furthermore, a 

sentence that is within the guidelines range is presumed to be proportionate, and a proportionate 

sentence is not cruel or unusual. Bowling, 299 Mich App at 558. 

 Here, defendant’s minimum sentence of 16 years falls squarely within the sentencing 

guidelines range. As defendant’s sentence is within the sentencing guidelines range, the 

sentence is presumptively proportionate, and accordingly, “is not cruel or unusual.” Id. 

Defendant’s argument also specifically stresses that his mental illness should have been a factor 

in the imposition of his sentence. The record reflects that the trial court carefully considered 

defendant’s mental condition in determining a proportionate sentence to impose. Defendant has 

not established plain error on the basis that the trial court imposed a sentence greater than 

defendant desired. See People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412, 416; 804 NW2d 903 (2011); People v 

Nunez, 242 Mich App 610, 618; 619 NW2d 550 (2000). Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is 

not cruel or unusual under either the Michigan or the United States Constitutions. 

 We affirm. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly