PEOPLE OF MI V AARON DEON KENDRICKS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 24, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 240331
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 01-179719-FH
AARON DEON KENDRICKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530, and
was sentenced to four to fifteen years in prison. He appeals as of right. We affirm. This case is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues that his sentence was disproportionate because this crime was his first
felony and he maintains that he is mentally ill and mentally retarded. The record supports a
conclusion that defendant has a history of psychotic disorders and that he is at least mildly
mentally retarded. Defendant acknowledges that his minimum sentence was within the
guidelines range of 36 to 71 months, but asserts that it should have been 36 months given these
extenuating factors.
Since this crime occurred on May 2, 2001, the legislative sentencing guidelines apply.
MCL 769.34(2). MCL 769.34(10), a provision of the legislative sentencing guidelines, provides
that if the minimum sentence imposed is within the guidelines range, this Court must affirm and
may not remand for resentencing absent an error in the scoring of the sentencing guidelines or
absent inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant's sentence. Defendant
does not argue an error in scoring or that the information was inaccurate.
In People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 255-256; 666 NW2d 231 (2003), the Supreme Court
held:
Before the enactment of these guidelines, the trial court was required to choose a
sentence within the statutory minimum and maximum that was “proportionate to
the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.”
[People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).] Following the
enactment of these guidelines, the trial court is required to choose a sentence
-1-
within the guidelines range, unless there is a “substantial and compelling” reason
for departing from this range. Consequently, . . . the role of the Court of Appeals
has also changed from reviewing the trial court’s sentencing decision for
“proportionality” to reviewing the trial court’s sentencing decision to determine,
first, whether it is within the appropriate guidelines range and, second, if it is not,
whether the trial court has articulated a “substantial and compelling” reason for
departing from such range.
Based on Babcock and MCL 769.34(10), we conclude that a sentence within the legislative
sentencing guidelines range is not subject to review by this Court for proportionality.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
