PEOPLE OF MI V RODNEY ALLEN ANTHONY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED February 5, 1999 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 193986 Recorder’s Court LC No. 95-004742 RODNEY ALLEN ANTHONY, Defendant-Appellant. Before: White, P.J., and Markman and Young, Jr., JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his bench trial convictions of two counts of assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). Defendant fired five to six shots into a car with three unarmed passengers, seriously injuring two men. Defendant was sentenced to ten to twenty years’ imprisonment for each of the assault with intent to murder convictions and two years’ imprisonment for the felony­ firearm conviction. We affirm. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court violated the principle of proportionality expressed in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Under Milbourn, supra at 660, a sentencing court abuses its discretion when it violates the principle of proportionality. A sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the defendant’s prior record. Id. at 635-36; People v Paquette, 214 Mich App 336, 344-45; 543 NW2d 342 (1995). A sentence imposed within an applicable sentencing guidelines range is presumptively neither excessively severe nor unfairly disparate. People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354-55; 408 NW2d 789 (1987); People v Kennebrew, 220 Mich App 601, 609; 560 NW2d 354 (1996). However, in unusual circumstances, such sentences can constitute an abuse of discretion. Milbourn, supra, at 661. Defendant’s ten year minimum sentences here are within the sentencing guidelines range of 96 to 180 months. Defendant’s employed status and his lack of criminal history, in our judgment, are not unusual circumstances which overcome the presumption of proportionality. People v Daniel, 207 Mich App 47, 54; 523 NW2d 830 (1994). Although the shooting incident, according to defendant, -1­ represented a reaction to a prior beating of defendant, the beating took place forty-five minutes earlier. Defendant had a sufficient amount of time to cool off. Instead, he went home, armed himself and paced outside his home. Given the seriousness of defendant’s crime, we conclude that defendant’s ten year minimum sentences are not disproportionate. Affirmed. /s/ Helene N. White /s/ Stephen J. Markman /s/ Robert P. Young, Jr. -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.