PEOPLE OF MI V KENNETH ROBBINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 23, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 230135
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-002882
KENNETH ROBBINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Murphy and Fitzgerald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant’s probation was revoked pursuant to MCL 771.4 and MCR 6.445, and the trial
court imposed a sentence of one to fifteen years’ imprisonment for defendant’s underlying
conviction for unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
The trial court found that defendant violated his probation when he was convicted in
Wayne Circuit Court case no. 00-003237 of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than
murder and felony-firearm.1 Defendant’s sole argument on appeal in the present case is
premised on a finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions in case no.
00-003237. However, we have concluded in our Docket No. 230140 that the evidence was
sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and felony-firearm, and that
the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict with regard to
those convictions. People v Robbins, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals,
issued ______________ (Docket No. 230140).2 In the instant case, when reviewing a claim of
insufficient evidence of a probation violation, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to
the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could conclude that the
preponderance of the evidence indicated that the defendant violated his probation. People v
Reynolds, 195 Mich App 182, 184; 489 NW2d 128 (1992). Because we find that there was
sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions under the higher “reasonable doubt”
1
The convictions are the subject of the appeal in Docket No. 230140 that was submitted with the
present appeal.
2
The opinion is being issued simultaneously with the present opinion.
-1-
standard, we conclude that there is also sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant
violated his probation by committing these offenses under the lower “preponderance” standard.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.
