PEOPLE OF MI V JEFFREY LINDEL FARMER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 26, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 275906
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-210847-FC
JEFFREY LINDEL FARMER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cavanagh and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted at a bench trial of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and was
sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to ten to 30 years in prison. Defendant
appeals as of right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
It was undisputed at trial that defendant committed the relevant robbery. The disputed
question was whether defendant was guilty of armed robbery or the less serious crime of
unarmed robbery.
Defendant first argues that the trial court’s verdict was against the great weight of the
evidence. We disagree.
A verdict is against the great weight of the evidence if “the evidence preponderates so
heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand.”
People v McCray, 245 Mich App 631, 637; 630 NW2d 633 (2001). The evidence did not
preponderate heavily against the trial court convicting defendant of armed robbery based on its
finding that defendant represented orally or otherwise that he had a weapon during the robbery.
See MCL 750.529 (defining the aggravating element for armed robbery as opposed to unarmed
robbery to occur in relevant part where a person “represents orally or otherwise that he or she is
in possession of a dangerous weapon”). According to the victim, defendant had his hand in his
jacket pocket so that his hand appeared to be around an object that was pointed at the victim
during the robbery, defendant looked and nodded toward his jacket during the robbery and made
threatening statements, telling her to “hurry up” if she knew what was good for her and that she
had to stop talking loudly or something would happen to her. This testimony strongly supports a
finding that defendant by his oral statements and gestures represented to the victim that he had a
gun at the time of the robbery.
-1-
Defendant attacks the victim’s credibility because her police statement did not recount
statements she testified were made by defendant. However, it is apparent that the victim was
simply a store clerk doing her job at the time of the robbery, with no preexisting connection or
animus against defendant that would provide her with strong motive to lie about whether
defendant appeared to be, or suggested that he was, armed. In contrast, defendant had substantial
motive to lie about whether he had or acted like he had a weapon at the time of the robbery,
because he acknowledged that he knew there was a greater potential penalty for armed robbery
than for unarmed robbery.
It is also plausible that the victim was more likely to have complied with defendant’s
demand that she give him money belonging to the store if he implied that he had a weapon than
if he did not do so, particularly given defendant’s acknowledgment in his testimony that she was
larger than he was. Further, it is readily understandable that the victim would not have recounted
all details about the robbery while she was under the emotional stress of the incident shortly after
it occurred. Moreover, as a matter of common sense, the focus of the police immediately after
the incident would be on eliciting details to assist in identifying the robber; neither the victim nor
the police would have had particular reason to believe the robber would advance a version of
events in which he acknowledged commission of the robbery but denied suggesting he was
armed during it. It clearly was not against the great weight of the evidence for the trial court to
credit the testimony of a store clerk indicating that defendant suggested he had a gun during the
incident over that of defendant who undisputedly committed the robbery at issue.
Defendant also argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate whether
still photographs of defendant at the checkout counter at the time of the robbery existed in light
of the known existence of a still photograph of defendant entering the store. We conclude that
defendant has not established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must show that
counsel’s performance was deficient and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error,
the result of the proceeding would have been different. People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 600;
623 NW2d 884 (2001).
Because defendant did not raise this issue below, our review is limited to the existing
record. People v Cox, 268 Mich App 440, 453; 709 NW2d 152 (2005). Defendant has not
provided any affidavit or other evidence to support his claim that trial counsel failed to
investigate whether still photographs of defendant at the counter existed or to support a finding
of prejudice, i.e., evidence that any still photograph that may exist would actually be favorable to
defendant. Thus, defendant has failed to meet his burden “of establishing the factual predicate”
for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Carbin, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.