People v. Kendrick

Defendant appealed from his conviction for murder and armed robbery, arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting other-crimes evidence, that his sentence of 60 years was unconstitutional, and that the trial court erred in finding that he lacked rehabilitative potential. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the admission of other crimes evidence, while improper, was harmless, that the trial court properly considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing, and that defendant’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the nature of the offense. (HOLDRIDGE and McDADE, concurring)