PEOPLE OF MI V KENNETH LEE ROBERTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 19, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 286955
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 07-023488-FC
KENNETH LEE ROBERTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right the sentences imposed on his jury trial convictions of felon in
possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b.1 He was sentenced to consecutive terms of two to five
years in prison for felon in possession and two years for felony-firearm. We affirm. This appeal
has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal defendant argues that the trial court should have sentenced him to concurrent
sentences, and that the trial court’s failure to do so constitutes double jeopardy. Defendant failed
to raise this issue below. We review an unpreserved double jeopardy challenge for plain error
affecting substantial rights. People v Meshell, 265 Mich App 616, 628; 696 NW2d 754 (2005).
Defendant’s argument was explicitly rejected in People v Dillard, 246 Mich App 163,
168; 631 NW2d 755 (2001), where this Court held:
We reject defendant’s suggestion that “there is no conclusive evidence that
the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishment” for both felon in
possession of a firearm and felony-firearm because the felon in possession of a
firearm statute was not enacted until after the Legislature had, in 1990, amended
and expanded the list of exceptions to the felony-firearm statute. In enacting the
felon in possession statute the Legislature presumably was aware of the four
exceptions to the felony-firearm statute. We conclude that had the Legislature
1
Defendant was acquitted of concurrent charges of armed robbery and assault with intent to
murder.
-1-
wished to exclude the felon in possession charge as a basis for liability under the
felony-firearm statute, the Legislature would have amended the felony-firearm
statute to explicitly exclude the possibility of a conviction under the felonyfirearm statute that was premised on MCL 750.224f. (Citations omitted).
Our Supreme Court has also held that it is constitutionally permissible for the underlying felony
of a felony-firearm conviction to be felon in possession of a firearm because “felon in possession
of a firearm” is not one of the four felonies expressly enumerated as exceptions to the statute.
MCL 750.227b(1); People v Calloway, 469 Mich 448, 452; 671 NW2d 733 (2003), citing
Dillard, supra. Citing the concurrence in Calloway, and noting that the defendant in that case
was convicted of both felon in possession and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm, as
well as felony-firearm, defendant maintains that this holding in Calloway was unnecessary and
thus constituted dictum. However, defendant is mistaken. Had the Calloway Court not found
that felon in possession could be a predicate offense to felony-firearm, it would have instead
required that Calloway’s sentence for the felony-firearm conviction be served consecutively to
the assault conviction, and concurrently with the felon in possession conviction. See People v
Clark, 463 Mich 459, 463-465; 619 NW2d 538 (2000); People v Wyatt, 470 Mich 878; 683
NW2d 143 (2004).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Alton T. Davis
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.
