PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT ALLEN EDISON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 31, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 196164
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 95-000710 FH
ROBERT ALLEN EDISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Gribbs, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of unlawfully driving away an automobile, MCL 750.413;
MSA 28.645, and sentenced to serve an enhanced prison terms of two to ten years, based on
defendant’s status as an habitual offender, third offense. He appeals as of right and we affirm.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in ruling his confession admissible after a
Walker hearing. When reviewing such a ruling, the trial court’s findings of historical fact are reviewed
only for clear error, while mixed findings of fact and law, and determinations of law, are reviewed de
novo. Thompson v Keohane, 516 US ___; 116 S Ct 457; 133 L Ed 2d 383 (1995). Here, as a
question of historical fact, the trial court determined that defendant’s version of the facts was not
credible. We find no clear error in this determination. Indeed, by his own testimony, defendant was not
under the influence of drugs when he was interrogated, although he claimed to be suffering from
withdrawal symptoms. No such symptoms were observed by the interrogating officer. As the trial
court noted, defendant is intelligent and experienced in dealing with the police, given his past criminal
record, and there is no credible evidence to support the claim that his confession was the product of
intoxication sufficient to implicate his Fifth Amendment rights. People v Leighty, 161 Mich App 565,
571; 411 NW2d 778 (1987). Under the totality of the circumstances, the confession was voluntary
and therefore admissible. People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315; 429 NW2d 781 (1988).
As an habitual offender, defendant’s claim of sentence disproportionality is subject to appellate
review only for abuse of the trial court’s sentencing discretion. People v Hansford (After Remand),
454 Mich 320; 562 NW2d 460 (1997). Where defendant could have received a sentence of 6 2/3 to
-1
10 years, yet received a minimum sentence of 2 years, no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing discretion
has been established.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-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.
