Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree felony murder; MCL 750.316(1)(b); People v Lane; Intent to kill; People v Unger; Identity; People v Yost; Sentencing; Proportionality; Youth as a mitigating factor; People v Boykin; Unusual circumstances

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions, and that his murder sentences were proportional. He was convicted of first-degree felony murder and felony-firearm for his involvement in a botched robbery when he was 17. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 38 to 60 years for each murder conviction, and a consecutive 2 years for each felony-firearm conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he accompanied his codefendant, Cooper, to the scene of the shooting. While defendant “may be correct about the lack of physical evidence and testimony from Cooper, there was sufficient evidence produced at trial to establish that he was present at the murder scene and that he caused the deaths of” the victims. In addition, the “evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find [he] possessed a handgun . . . before the murders, possessed a handgun on his person in the car on the way to the murders, and shot” the victims. Further, “there was sufficient evidence of [the] third element for first-degree felony murder, that [he] killed [the victims] while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of robbery.” The court also rejected his claim that his murder sentences were “disproportionate given his age at the time of the crimes, that he was present for a robbery only due to the heavy influence of a much older person, and that this much older person, codefendant Cooper, received a 25-year prison sentence compared to” his 38 to 60-year sentences. Defendant “presented no unusual circumstances that render his presumptively proportionate sentences disproportionate. On the contrary, the trial court’s sentence appears to satisfy the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness.” Affirmed.