People v. Gatewood

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Gatewood

550 N.W.2d 265, 216 Mich. App. 559

Michigan Court of Appeals·Decided July 12, 1996·No. Docket 193626·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On November 3, 1995, we issued our opinion in this matter. People v Gatewood, 214 Mich App 211; 542 NW2d 605 (1995). On March 19, 1996, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, issued an order remanding the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of its order. People v Gatewood, 450 Mich 1021 (1996). Pursuant to that order, appellate review of habitual offender sentences using the sentencing guidelines in any fashion is inappropriate. Thus, our review of an habitual offender sentence is limited to considering whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality set forth in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), without reference to the guidelines. In light of the circumstances surrounding the offense and offender in this case, we conclude that defendant’s sentence does not violate the principle of proportionality, Milboum, supra, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant, People v Cervantes, 448 Mich 620, 627, 630; 532 NW2d 831 (1995).

We affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

On November 3, 1995, we issued our opinion in this matter. People v Gatewood, 214 Mich App 211; 542 NW2d 605 (1995). On March 19, 1996, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, issued an order remanding the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of its order. People v Gatewood, 450 Mich 1021 (1996). Pursuant to that order, appellate review of habitual offender sentences using the sentencing guidelines in any fashion is inappropriate. Thus, our review of an habitual offender sentence is limited to considering whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality set forth in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), without reference to the guidelines. In light of the circumstances surrounding the offense and offender in this case, we conclude that defendant’s sentence does not violate the principle of proportionality, Milboum, supra, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant, People v Cervantes, 448 Mich 620, 627, 630; 532 NW2d 831 (1995).

We affirm.

People v. Gatewood, 550 N.W.2d 265, 216 Mich. App. 559 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

550 N.W.2d 265 (People v. Gatewood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related