PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES HENRY CARR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED October 4, 1996 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 189414 LC No. 95-009706-FH JAMES HENRY CARR, Defendant-Appellant. Before: J.H. Gillis, P.J., and G.S. Allen and J.B. Sullivan, JJ.* MEMORANDUM. Defendant pleaded guilty to larceny in a building, MCL 750.360; MSA 28.592, and habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082. He was thereafter sentenced to three to six years’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a sentence for which he was on parole. He now appeals as of right. We affirm. This case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b). There is no record support for defendant’s claim that the sentencing court considered inaccurate information contained in the presentence investigation report when fashioning his sentence. Instead, the record indicates that the court’s comments were consistent with the admissions made on the record by defense counsel concerning the nature of defendant’s criminal history. There is also no record support for defendant’s claim that the sentencing court sentenced him under the mistaken belief that he had been convicted as a fourth habitual offender. Instead, the record indicates that the judgment of sentence contained a typographical error that has since been cured by the entry of an amended judgment of sentence. Finally, we decline appellate consideration of defendant’s claim that the sentencing court erroneously considered counselless convictions when fashioning an appropriate sentence. Defendant *Former Court of Appeals judges, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Administrative Order 1996-3. -1­ has abandoned this claim by failing to properly present the issue. People v Kent, 194 Mich App 206, 210; 486 NW2d 110 (1992). Affirmed. /s/ John H. Gillis /s/ Glenn S. Allen, Jr. /s/ Joseph B. Sullivan -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.