People of Michigan v. Dontae Robinson
327484
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- On Oct. 20, 2014, Jamon Cole was approached by defendant Don tae Robinson in an apartment complex, threatened with a gun, and robbed of necklaces and his cellphone; defendant fired two shots as Cole fled.
- Police shortly after pursued a gray car Cole had pointed out; a gun was thrown from the passenger window; defendant (a passenger) fled when the car stopped and was apprehended nearby.
- Defendant was found with marijuana, Cole’s phone and necklaces, and admitted possessing the gun that fired the shots; Cole identified defendant at the scene but later expressed uncertainty at trial.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of armed robbery, AGBH, carrying a concealed weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, assaulting/resisting/obstructing a police officer, felony-firearm, and possession of marijuana.
- The trial court sentenced defendant as a habitual fourth offender to lengthy prison terms; defendant appealed raising sufficiency of the evidence, jail-credit, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification/evidence for armed robbery and AGBH | Evidence (victim’s contemporaneous direction to car, defendant’s possession of gun and stolen items, in-custody ID) supports conviction | ID was unreliable; victim later equivocated; circumstantial evidence insufficient | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Intent for AGBH | Defendant pointed a gun, threatened to kill, then fired two shots — supports intent to cause great bodily harm | No proof shots were aimed at victim (could have been fired into air) | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence and use of a dangerous weapon sustain an inference of intent |
| Jail credit for pre-sentencing custody | Defendant sought 183 days’ credit | Defendant was on parole when arrested; MCL 769.11b does not apply to parolees serving earlier sentences; trial court lacked authority to grant credit | Affirmed — no entitlement to jail credit where detention accrues to original sentence (Idziak controlling) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to obtain/ investigate an eyewitness-identification expert and failed to object to lack of jail credit | Strategy to impeach ID via cross-examination was reasonable; no record showing failure to investigate; objection on jail credit would be meritless | Affirmed — counsel not ineffective under Strickland; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Henderson, 306 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction; counsel not ineffective for raising meritless issues)
- People v Idziak, 484 Mich. 549 (Mich. 2009) (MCL 769.11b does not permit jail-credit for parolees detained for new felonies)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v Armstrong, 490 Mich. 281 (Mich. 2011) (articulating Strickland standard in Michigan)
- People v Kowalski, 492 Mich. 106 (Mich. 2012) (jurors can assess eyewitness identification without expert testimony)
- People v Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (Mich. 2000) (prosecutor need not negate every theory consistent with innocence)