PEOPLE OF MI V MAX EUGENE BAUGH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 12, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 284248
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 07-015421-FC
MAX EUGENE BAUGH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Murray and Stephens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury convictions of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b.
Defendant was sentenced to six to 20 years in prison for armed robbery, and to a consecutive
two-year term for felony-firearm. We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Complainant Christopher Richardson testified that his brother gave him $250.
Richardson purchased approximately $100 in clothes, and went to a friend’s home. Apparently,
he took the remainder of his money out of his pocket while he was outside the home. At the
same time, he noticed defendant, defendant’s mother, and co-defendant Ronald Billups seated in
an automobile. He had known defendant for a few months. Richardson, who had borrowed a
bicycle from his friend, began to ride slowly down the street. Defendant and the others drove
along side him. Richardson said he felt someone place a gun to the back of his head, turned
around, and saw defendant pointing an automatic handgun at him. Defendant demanded
Richardson’s money, and Richardson, who maintained that he was afraid he would be shot if he
refused to comply, handed the money to defendant. Defendant then returned to his car, and he
and the others drove away.
Defendant first maintains that the prosecutor failed to provide sufficient evidence to
support his armed robbery conviction. We disagree.
We review a defendant’s allegations regarding insufficiency of the evidence de novo.
People v Herndon, 246 Mich App 371, 415; 633 NW2d 376 (2001). We view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find
that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. However,
we should not interfere with the jury’s role of determining the weight of the evidence or the
-1-
credibility of the witnesses. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489 NW2d 748, amended
441 Mich 1202 (1992). Satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime can be shown by
circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom. People v Carines, 460
Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). It is for the trier of fact to determine what inferences
fairly can be drawn from the evidence and the weight to be accorded to those inferences. People
v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). All conflicts in the evidence must be
resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v Terry, 224 Mich App 447, 452; 569 NW2d 641
(1997).
The elements of armed robbery are an assault, combined with a felonious taking of
property from the victim’s presence while the defendant is armed with a weapon as described in
the statute. MCL 750.529; Carines, supra at 757. Richardson’s testimony, if believed,
established the elements of the offense. Defendant argues that Richardson’s testimony was
insufficient because it was uncorroborated, and that it was not credible because it contradicted
Richardson’s earlier statement to the police and his preliminary examination testimony.
However, any discrepancies in Richardson’s testimony were explored in direct examination and
on cross-examination. The jury chose to believe Richardson’s testimony, and was in a better
position to judge his credibility. Given we will not usurp the jury’s role of determining the
weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses, Wolfe, supra at 514-515, we find that
the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
Defendant next maintains that his sentence for armed robbery constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment. We disagree.
Defendant’s sentence was within the sentencing guidelines. A sentence within the
guidelines must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court erred in scoring the guidelines or
relied on inaccurate information. MCL 769.34(10). This limitation on review is not applicable
to claims of constitutional error. People v Conley, 270 Mich App 301, 316; 715 NW2d 377
(2006). However, a sentence within the guidelines range is presumptively proportionate, People
v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354-355; 408 NW2d 789 (1987), and a sentence that is proportionate is
not cruel and unusual punishment. Terry, supra at 456.
Defendant has presented nothing to rebut this presumption. Defendant has an extensive
juvenile criminal history, a substance abuse problem, and apparently has never been employed.
According to the PSIR, defendant failed to comply with many of his previous conditions of
probation, including obtaining employment, a GED, and community service, or to repay any of
his previous court costs and fees. Defendant committed the instant offense while on probation.
Defendant has not shown that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-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.
