PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES A AMMONS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 15, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 203126
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 97-150456 FC
JAMES A. AMMONS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., McDonald and T. G. Hicks*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his conviction for unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530; MSA
28.798, and habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084, entered after a bench trial.
We affirm. We decide this appeal without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues that his eight to twenty year sentence is disproportionate because it is the
maximum sentence he could have received within the guidelines range for the underlying offense. The
sentencing guidelines do not apply to a habitual offender sentence. People v Hansford (After
Remand), 454 Mich 320, 323; 562 NW2d 460 (1997). Nonetheless, the principle of proportionality
announced in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), applies to habitual offenders.
People v McFall, 224 Mich App 403, 415; 569 NW2d 828 (1997). Given defendant’s past record
of offenses, his long standing drug problem, and the nature of the instant offense, there is no showing
that the sentence was disproportionately severe or that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
defendant. Hansford, supra.
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in failing sua sponte to consider his drug
intoxication as negating his ability to form the specific intent to commit a robbery. There is no merit to
this claim where defendant testified that he intended to rob the Subway shop in order to get money for
drugs. “The defense of intoxication will negate the specific intent element of the crime charged if the
degree of intoxication is so great as to render the accused incapable of
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
entertaining the intent.” People v King, 210 Mich App 425, 428; 534 NW2d 534 (1995). By
defendant’s own testimony, that was not the case here.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Timothy G. Hicks
-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.