PEOPLE OF MI V BRADY LEE WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 19, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 205425
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 95-010364 FH
BRADY LEE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Jansen and Collins, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right his sentence for probation violation after a plea-based conviction of
possession of less than twenty-five grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v); MSA
14.15(7403)(2)(a)(v), and habitual offender, fourth or subsequent offense, MCL 769.12; MSA
28.1084. We affirm, and remand for entry of an amended judgment.
On March 13, 1995 defendant pleaded guilty to the underlying charges of possession and
habitual offender. On May 2, 1995 the court sentenced defendant to two years’ probation. On July
21, 1995 and July 16, 1996 defendant pleaded guilty to charges of probation violation. The second
charge arose out of his plea-based conviction of felon in possession of a firearm. On both occasions his
probation was continued, and on the second occasion it was extended for one year.
On July 24, 1997 defendant pleaded guilty to the instant probation violation. Probation was
violated as a result of defendant being convicted in separate cases of retail fraud in the first degree and
habitual offender, third offense, and fleeing a police officer. The court sentenced defendant to six to
fifteen years in prison, concluding that defendant could not conform his conduct to the law, and that a
short jail sentence would make no impression on him.
On appeal, defendant argues that his sentence is disproportionate. He asserts that in imposing
the sentence that it did, the trial court did not take into consideration the fact that his prior criminal
record was tied to his history of substance abuse, and that he was in need of stringent therapy. In
addition, defendant contends that he was entitled to six days’ credit against his sentence. Plaintiff
concedes that defendant is entitled to such credit.
-1
We affirm. The sentencing guidelines do not apply to habitual offenders or probation violators.
People v Williams, 223 Mich App 409, 412; 566 NW2d 649 (1997). The standard of review for a
sentence imposed on an habitual offender is abuse of discretion. If an habitual offender’s underlying
criminal history and felony history demonstrate that he is unable to conform his conduct to the law, a
sentence within the statutory limits does not constitute an abuse of discretion. People v Hansford
(After Remand), 454 Mich 320, 323-324, 326; 562 NW2d 460 (1997). Defendant had an extensive
criminal record prior to committing the underlying offenses, and committed several crimes, including two
felonies, while on probation. As a fourth habitual offender, the court could have imposed a sentence of
ten to fifteen years in prison. MCL 769.12(1)(b); MSA 28.1084(1)(b). Defendant’s sentence was
within the statutory limits, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.
Affirmed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment of sentence granting defendant six
days’ credit. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
-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.
