PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES ARTHUR DAOUST

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED January 10, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 185435 LC No. 90-43758-FC JAMES A. DAOUST, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Taylor, P. J. and Gribbs and R. D. Gotham,* JJ PER CURIAM. In 1991, defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, felonious assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five to fifty years for the second-degree murder conviction, two to four years for the felonious assault conviction, and two years for the felony-firearm conviction. This Court reversed defendant’s convictions in an unpublished per curiam opinion because the trial court, through its court officer, had a substantive communication with two jurors without notifying trial counsel. People v Daoust, issued July 12, 1994 (Docket No. 141152). On remand, defendant and the prosecution reached a plea/sentence agreement. In return for pleading no contest to second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the felonious assault and felony-firearm charges. It was also agreed that defendant’s minimum sentence would not exceed fifteen years. The court sentenced defendant to fifteen to twenty-five years in prison for the second-degree murder conviction. Defendant appeals the proportionality of his sentence as of right and we affirm. We are satisfied that defendant is not entitled to any relief because he received a sentence consistent with the sentence agreement. Under such circumstances, he has no ground to complain. People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276, 285; 505 NW2d 208 (1993) (a defendant who pleads nolo contendere with knowledge of the sentence and who later seeks appellate relief under People v * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 [1990], must expect to be denied relief on the ground that the plea demonstrates the defendant’s agreement that the sentence is proportionate to the offense and the offender); People v Rodriguez, 212 Mich App 351, 355; 538 NW2d 42 (1995) (the fact that defendant’s sentence is in accordance with his plea demonstrates his agreement that the sentence is proportionate); People v Ward, 206 Mich App 38, 44; 520 NW2d 363 (1994) (a defendant waives his right to challenge the proportionality of his sentence where he entered into, and was sentenced in accordance with, a sentence agreement and did not move to withdraw his plea). In any event, we reject defendant’s claim that his fifteen-year minimum sentence is disproportionate. Defendant’s sentence was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines, which indicated twelve to twenty-five years. We find that defendant’s sentence was proportionate because it reflected the seriousness of the matter. People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 320; 532 NW2d 508 (1995). Affirmed. /s/ Clifford W. Taylor /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Roy D. Gotham -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.