People v. Turner, Docket No. 65123
Decision Date | 06 May 1983 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 65123 |
Citation | 332 N.W.2d 626,123 Mich.App. 600 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene TURNER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Paul L. Maloney, Pros. Atty., and Angela Baryames, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Timothy K. Dowling, Niles, for defendant-appellant.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and QUINNELL *, JJ.
Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, M.C.L. Sec. 750.529; M.S.A. Sec. 28.797. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and appeals by right.
Defendant first argues that life imprisonment for armed robbery is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of U.S. Const., Am. VIII and Const.1963, art. 1, Sec. 16. The dominant test controlling determination of cruel and unusual punishment under both constitutional provisions is whether the punishment is in excess of any that would be suitable to fit the crime. People v. Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167, 176, 194 N.W.2d 827 (1972); People v. Stewart (On Rehearing), 400 Mich. 540, 554, 256 N.W.2d 31 (1977). Armed robbery is a crime of violence which creates a serious risk of death or great bodily harm to the victims. In view of the violent nature of the crime, we cannot say that life imprisonment is a punishment in excess of any suitable to fit the crime or that it shocks the conscience of the Court.
In Lorentzen, supra, 387 Mich. pp. 176-177, 194 N.W.2d 827, the Court noted that the mandatory minimum sentence for sale of marijuana was disproportionately long when compared to the sentences for other crimes involving the sale of harmful substances or for various crimes of violence. Here, we note that sentences of life imprisonment are available for other crimes involving a level of violence or a potential for harm to others analogous to that involved in armed robbery. See M.C.L. Sec. 750.83; M.S.A. Sec. 28.278 ( ), M.C.L. Sec. 750.89; M.S.A. Sec. 28.284 ( ), M.C.L. Sec. 750.209; M.S.A. Sec. 28.406 ( ), M.C.L. Sec. 750.349; M.S.A. Sec. 28.581 (kidnapping), M.C.L. Sec. 750.349a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.581(1) ( ), M.C.L. Sec. 750.422; M.S.A. Sec. 28.664 ( ), M.C.L. Sec. 750.436; M.S.A. Sec. 28.691 ( ), M.C.L. Sec. 750.511; M.S.A. Sec. 28.779 ( ), M.C.L. Sec. 750.516; M.S.A. Sec. 28.784 ( ), and M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2) ( ).
Defendant points out that the Lorentzen Court emphasized the need of short sentences to serve the goal of rehabilitation; however, this aspect of the test was stated as follows, Lorentzen, 180-181, 194 N.W.2d 827.
In view of the extremely serious nature of the crime at issue here, we cannot say that the policy favoring rehabilitation should outweigh the policies favoring deterrence and the protection of society from the offender.
Defendant also complains of the failure of the sentencing judge to articulate on the record the factors considered in imposing sentence. Although the Court in People v. Lee, 391 Mich. 618, 638, 218 N.W.2d 655 (1974), stated that such an explanation would be useful, no court has ever held such an explanation to be required. See People v. Green, 113 Mich.App. 699, 707, 318 N.W.2d 547 (1982). Because defendant's sentence falls within the limits permitted by the statute, we must decline defendant's invitation to review the trial judge's exercise of his sentencing discretion. See People v. Malkowski, 385 Mich. 244, 247-248, 188 N.W.2d 559 (1971), and People v. Burton, 396 Mich. 238, 243, 240 N.W.2d 239 (1976).
Defendant also asks us to declare the effect of M.C.L. Sec. 791.233b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.2303(2) (1978 Initiated Proposal B) on his sentence. No such issue was before the trial court or could have been raised before the trial court in this action, and our resolution of such an issue would make no difference as to whether defendant's conviction and sentence is affirmed or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Anderson
...the trial court never held that an expert was required. We generally refrain from deciding hypothetical issues. People v. Turner, 123 Mich.App. 600, 604, 332 N.W.2d 626 (1983). 1. Although the statutory provisions at issue refer to “marihuana,” by convention this Court uses the more common ......
-
People v. Hart
...conviction, this issue is not ripe for a decision by this Court. We do not give "advisory" opinions. See People v. Turner, 123 Mich.App. 600, 332 N.W.2d 626 (1983). We have examined defendant's sentencing claims which comprise the fifth issue herein and find defendant's claims to be rendere......
-
Ansorge v. Kellogg
...Defendants' remaining issues were not addressed by the trial court. We, therefore, decline their review. People v. Turner, 123 Mich.App. 600, 604, 332 N.W.2d 626 (1983). * John H. Hausner, 3rd Judicial Circuit Judge, sitting on Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const. 1963, Art. 6,......