Sentencing; Proportionality

Holding that the record supported defendant’s sentence, and he failed to overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence for AWIM was proportionate, the court affirmed. He was convicted of AWIM, felony-firearm, FIP, and tampering with an electronic monitoring device. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to serve concurrent prison terms of 40 to 50 years for AWIM; 4 to 20 years for FIP; and 2 to 15 years for tampering with an electronic monitoring device. Defendant was also sentenced to serve 5 years’ imprisonment for each felony-firearm conviction, to be served consecutively to the underlying felonies. He argued “that the 40-year minimum sentence he was given for his AWIM conviction was disproportionate to the offense and offender.” The court held that “the trial court’s decision to impose a sentence in the middle of the recommended guidelines range was supported by the significant number of serious aggravating circumstances in the case.” Given the facts, the court held that the trial court “was wholly justified in determining that a lower minimum sentence was not warranted.” Defendant suggested that the trial “court ‘had no real guidance’ when it sentenced defendant because the guidelines range—225 to 750 months—was too broad. However, this critique of the . . . guidelines range does not actually address whether defendant’s sentence was proportionate to him and his offense.”