People v. Cheeks
| Decision Date | 07 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 174619 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton CHEEKS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Olga Agnello, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for People.
State Appellate Defender by P.E. Bennett, for defendant on appeal.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and RICHARD ALLEN GRIFFIN and E.R. Post, * JJ.
A jury convicted defendant of first-degree premeditated murder, M.C.L. § 750.316(1)(a); M.S.A. § 28.548(1)(a), first-degree felony-murder, M.C.L. § 750.316(1)(b); M.S.A. § 28.548(1)(b), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. § 750.227b; M.S.A. § 28.424(2). At the time of the offense, defendant was fifteen years old. 1 After the jury convicted defendant, the trial court held a juvenile sentencing hearing as required by M.C.L. § 769.1(3); M.S.A. § 28.1072(3) and MCR 6.931(A) to determine whether to sentence defendant as a juvenile or as an adult. The trial court determined that defendant should be sentenced as an adult and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the first-degree felony-murder conviction and for two years for the felony-firearm conviction. The trial court dismissed without prejudice defendant's first-degree premeditated murder conviction on double jeopardy grounds. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
On September 26, 1993, at approximately 11:30 a.m., defendant and his sister arrived at the residence of David Pasley, the victim, at the same time the victim's brother, Charles Pasley, and Charles' friend, Greg Jordon, and the victim's four-year-old daughter were leaving the house to go to a McDonald's restaurant. When they returned to the residence about twenty minutes later, Charles and Jordon heard gunshots and discovered the victim lying on the floor on a landing between the first and second floors. The victim had sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was dead.
Dr. Laning Davidson, an assistant medical examiner for the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office who performed the autopsy of the victim, testified that the victim died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. In total, the victim sustained eleven gunshot wounds. The victim sustained one gunshot wound to the right leg and one below the right eye. The remaining nine wounds were sustained to the chest and upper abdominal area. All of the wounds contained exit wounds on the back of the body, and Dr. Davidson did not recover any bullets or bullet fragments from the victim's body. According to Dr. Davidson, the wounds to the victim's leg and face were not inflicted at close range. However, five of the nine wounds to the chest and upper abdominal area were inflicted at close range. After viewing photographs of the victim on the landing, Dr. Davidson testified that, on the basis of the blood spatters, the victim was already lying down when he was shot in the chest.
Defendant did not testify. However, Officer Charles Hines of the Inkster Police Department testified that he had a conversation with defendant about the incident and that defendant admitted that he shot the victim, but claimed that the shooting was accidental. According to Officer Hines, defendant stated that he accidentally pulled the trigger and the gun continued to discharge. During the conversation, defendant admitted that he removed a gold chain with a medallion from the victim's neck after shooting him. Officer Hines read into the record a statement written by defendant and bearing his signature. In the statement, defendant wrote that when the victim and his sister went upstairs, he retrieved a gun and was looking at it when he touched the trigger and the gun discharged. Defendant then went upstairs, intending to scare the victim, but not kill him. Defendant shot the gun upward, and the victim jumped at him. Defendant became scared, and the gun went off. According to the statement, the victim grabbed defendant's leg while the defendant's finger was on the trigger, and the gun continued to discharge. Defendant and his sister took the gun to a friend's house and put it in a dog house. When defendant returned to the friend's house to retrieve the gun, it was gone. Defendant's written statement was silent regarding whether defendant removed the gold chain and medallion from the victim's neck after the shooting.
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him as an adult. In reviewing a trial court's decision to sentence a minor as a juvenile or as an adult, this Court applies a bifurcated standard of review. People v. Lyons (On Remand), 203 Mich.App. 465, 467-468, 513 N.W.2d 170 (1994). We review the trial court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and the ultimate decision to sentence the minor as a juvenile or as an adult for an abuse of discretion. Id., at 468, 513 N.W.2d 170.
M.C.L. § 769.1(3); M.S.A. § 28.1072(3) and MCR 6.931(A) require a trial court to conduct a juvenile sentencing hearing to determine if the best interests of the defendant and the public would be served better by sentencing the juvenile as an adult. The trial court must consider the following factors in making this determination:
(a) The prior record and character of the juvenile, his or her physical and mental maturity, and his or her pattern of living.
(b) The seriousness and the circumstances of the offense.
(c) Whether the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of offenses which would lead to 1 of the following determinations:
(i) The juvenile is not amenable to treatment.
(ii) That despite the juvenile's potential for treatment, the nature of the juvenile's delinquent behavior is likely to disrupt the rehabilitation of other juveniles in the treatment program.
(d) Whether, despite the juvenile's potential for treatment, the nature of the juvenile's delinquent behavior is likely to render the juvenile dangerous to the public if released at the age of 21.
(e) Whether the juvenile is more likely to be rehabilitated by the services and facilities available in adult programs and procedures than in juvenile programs and procedures.
(f) What is in the best interests of the public welfare and the protection of the public security. .
The prosecutor has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the best interests of the juvenile and the public would be served by sentencing the juvenile as an adult offender. MCR 6.931(E)(2).
At the conclusion of the juvenile sentencing hearing, the trial court made findings of fact on the record as required by M.C.L. § 769.1(5); M.S.A. § 28.1072(5) and MCR 6.931(E)(4). Regarding the first factor, the trial court found that while defendant did not have a significant prior record, the situation was "repetitive" in that defendant had a fascination with guns and had been involved with guns in the past. As far as defendant's character, the trial court noted that defendant was emotionless and arrogant during the trial. The trial court characterized defendant as mean and vicious. Finally, the trial court described defendant's pattern of living as "something fierce" and noted that defendant lived his life with little, if any, regard for the rights of others.
Regarding the seriousness and the circumstances of the offense, the trial court stated the following:
I mean, there is little doubt in my mind that this is one, this particular murder, one of the more heinous ones that you come into. It's not often that we have people that are shot nine or eleven different times and the evidence suggesting that most of those bullets were pumped into a body or placed or shot in the body of the deceased while he was totally disabled. I mean, he was on the floor. Bullets went though his body, through the floor....
* * * * * *
... I am focusing quite a bit on the kind of crime that was committed. Not just that it was murder, but how it was done and under the circumstances it was done, and the arrogance that was demonstrated by--and the finality of it. He was out to kill this man.
The next factor that the trial court addressed was whether the offense was part of a pattern of offenses leading to a determination that defendant would not be amenable to treatment or that despite defendant's potential for treatment, the nature of defendant's behavior was likely to disrupt the rehabilitation of other juveniles in the treatment program. The trial court found that defendant would be a threat to other juveniles because of his size and his "machoism." The trial court further stated that it believed that if defendant was sentenced as a juvenile, he would consider his crime to be a badge of honor and would focus on how "bad" he is.
With regard to the related factor concerning whether the nature of defendant's behavior was likely to render him dangerous to the public if released at the age of twenty-one despite his potential for treatment, the trial court stated:
And if he is released back to society, given this offense, I certainly wouldn't want him released to a society that was close to me. Because I think he is a danger. I think he will remain a danger. I don't think four or five years of any kind of treatment that he could possibly receive, unless he was in treatment twenty-four hours a day for the next five years, seven days a week, 365 ays [sic] a year would possibly even help him. And even that may not help him.
* * * * * *
If he goes to juvenile court, juvenile authority, I think he will bide his time until he is released. And when he is released, he would be the same person he is or was the day he shot and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stevens, Docket No. 149380.
...per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 10, 2014 (Docket No. 309481), p. 3, 2014 WL 1402079, citing People v. Cheeks, 216 Mich.App. 470, 480, 549 N.W.2d 584 (1996). The majority stated that, while a judge may ask questions of witnesses, certain questions could indicate improper par......
-
Williams v. Withrow
...more than a modicum of evidence; there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant could be convicted of the lesser offense. Id at 479-80, 549 N.W.2d at 588; but see People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335, 353-354, 357, 646 N.W.2d 127 (2002) (changing the rule to provide that only necessarily ......
-
People v. Thenghkam
...all the findings on the statutory factors, "giving each weight as appropriate to the circumstances." See also People v. Cheeks, 216 Mich.App. 470, 478-479, 549 N.W.2d 584 (1996) (trial court must consider and balance all the factors listed in the statute). That means that a trial court may ......
-
People v. McIntire
...(1992). The test is whether partiality could have influenced the jury to the detriment of the defendant's case. People v. Cheeks, 216 Mich.App. 470, 480, 549 N.W.2d 584 (1996). Judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, t......