Sufficiency of the evidence; Self-defense; MCL 780.972; People v Dupree; Honest & reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm; MCL 780.951(1); Duty to retreat; People v Riddle; Improper mandatory inference; AWIGBH; People v McKewen; Constitutionality of state minimum costs under MCL 769.1k(1)(a), court costs under MCL 769.1k(b)(iii), & a crime victims fund assessment under MCL 780.905; Const 1963, art 8, § 9

The court held that defendant’s convictions were not improper because the trial court did not misapply the applicable self-defense law and did not make an improper mandatory inference when convicting him of AWIGBH. He was convicted of AWIGBH, discharge of a firearm at or in a dwelling or occupied structure causing injury, and felony-firearm, arising out of a non-fatal shooting at a gas station. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court misapplied the applicable self-defense laws by faulting him for coming out from behind a glass partition when he had no duty to retreat, and for failing to address the rebuttable presumption that he reasonably feared for his life during the altercation. It found the evidence did not support that any of the victim’s “companions were trying to remove defendant, so the rebuttable presumption under MCL 780.951(1)” did not apply. Further, defendant “did not have a reasonable belief that he was in imminent risk of death or bodily harm when he shot [the victim] from a place of safety, after” the victim and a companion “departed the gas station unarmed.” Even if he was in fear, “any purported threat was no longer imminent because both men departed the gas station and had their backs turned when defendant shot the rifle.” Moreover, defendant “was securely in the employee area when [the men] left the store, and he opened the door to the customer area to aim and shoot the assault rifle.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court made an improper mandatory inference when convicting him of AWIGBH, noting that nothing in the trial court’s opinion suggested it “felt constrained to apply this inference or that it actually believed that it was required to infer that defendant intended to cause great bodily harm simply because he used an assault rifle, as defendant contends.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that his costs and fees were unconstitutional, finding his “court-ordered costs under MCL 769.1k(1)(a) and (b)(iii), and his assessment under MCL 780.905, [were] compensatory and nonpenal, and [did] not constitute fines for the purposes of Const 1963, art 8, § 9. Because defendant did not ‘establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [a]ct would be valid,’ the statutory schemes underlying his costs and fees are not facially unconstitutional under Const 1963, art 8, § 9.” Affirmed.