Court Opinion

ID: 9953472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 06:07:46.314172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:57:18.132275
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                         STATE OF MICHIGAN

                          COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                  UNPUBLISHED
                                                                  March 21, 2024
              Plaintiff-Appellee,

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 People v Jenkins, unpublished per curiam opinion of the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

                                              -1-
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 within-
guidelines 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

                                                -2-
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,

                                                 -3-
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

                                              -4-