PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT LAWRENCE WILKENS JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
August 23, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 254668
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 03-000371-FH
ROBERT LAWRENCE WILKENS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Official Reported Version
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Bandstra and Kelly, JJ.
COOPER, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority's determination to affirm defendant's convictions. However, I
would find that the trial court improperly assessed ten points for Offense Variable (OV) 4, as
there was no evidence anywhere in the record to support this score.1 I would, therefore, remand
for resentencing.
I agree that the facts in this case are very disturbing. However, we, as judges of this
Court, cannot substitute our personal belief systems for the facts on record. There was no
evidence that either of the participants in the videotape suffered a serious psychological injury
requiring professional treatment. They voluntarily participated in these sexual acts on a casual
basis. In fact, there is evidence that the female victim felt that the prosecution of defendant was
unfounded.2 The prosecution presented no testimony from a psychologist or any other mental
health professional, nor was there any psychological information reflected in the presentencing
investigation report. While these individuals are not paragons of virtue, we cannot impose our
own standards of morality upon the participants and presume that they suffered serious
psychological injury requiring professional treatment, as contemplated by the statute.3
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
1
People v Hornsby, 251 Mich App 462, 468; 650 NW2d 700 (2002).
2
During a taped interview with defense counsel's detective, which was played at trial, the victim
stated that defendant had done nothing wrong and that she voluntarily participated in the sexual
acts depicted in the videotape.
3
MCL 777.34.
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
