PEOPLE OF MI V JERRY FOX
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 1, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 189595
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 95-000109-FC
JERRY FOX,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: D.F. Walsh,* P.J., and R.P. Griffin** and W.P. Cynar,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, and was
sentenced as an adult to four to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He appeals as of right. We affirm. This
case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(A).
The trial court did not clearly err in its findings on the statutory factors for sentencing defendant
as an adult. All of the court’s findings were supported by the evidence. MCL 769.1(3); MSA
28.1072(3); People v Launsburry, 217 Mich App 358, 362; 551 NW2d 460 (1996). Although the
witnesses recommended that defendant be sentenced as a juvenile, his criminal background, lack of
responsiveness to prior attempts at rehabilitation, and conduct while in juvenile detention favor the trial
court’s decision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the best interests of
defendant and society would be served by sentencing him to incarceration in the adult prison system.
Launsburry, supra.
Defendant’s four- to fifteen-year sentence falls within the recommended range of the sentencing
guidelines and does not violate the principle of proportionality. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630;
*Former Court of Appeals judges, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
**Former Supreme Court justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
-1
461 NW2d 1 (1990); People v Dukes, 189 Mich App 262; 471 NW2d 651 (1991). Defendant
presents his age, educational impairment, and lack of discipline and guidance, both from home and the
juvenile system, as unusual circumstances to overcome the presumption of proportionality. In light of
defendant’s background and his unresponsiveness to previous attempts at rehabilitation, his proposed
mitigating circumstances do not overcome the presumption. People v Rivera, 216 Mich App 648, 652;
550 NW2d 593 (1996).
Affirmed.
/s/ Daniel F. Walsh
/s/ Robert P. Griffin
/s/ Walter P. Cynar
-2
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.
