PEOPLE OF MI V JEFFREY LANELL HALL

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 187213 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LC No. 94-000757 JEFFREY LANELL HALL, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Hoekstra and S.F. Cox,* JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals as of right his convictions of receiving and concealing stolen property over $100, MCL 750.535; MSA 28.803, carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424, and fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084. He was sentenced to ten to thirty years’ imprisonment. We affirm. Defendant argues that his sentence of ten to thirty years in prison is disproportionate. Because defendant is an habitual offender, our review of defendant’s sentence is limited to whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality set forth in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). People v Gatewood (On Remand), 216 Mich App 559, 560; 550 NW2d 265 (1996). At the time defendant committed the present offenses, he was only twenty-one years old and had already committed three prior felonies. The present offenses constituted his fourth and fifth felonies. While defendant was in prison in 1991 and 1992, he had twenty-one major misconducts. Furthermore, defendant was on parole at the time he committed the present offenses and admitted that he was also involved as a driver in an armed robbery that occurred earlier in the evening prior to his arrest for the present offenses. 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. Milbourn, supra. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. Gatewood, supra. * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ We affirm. /s/ Richard A. Bandstra /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Sean F. Cox -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.