PEOPLE OF MI V DAMIAN BLACK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 31, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 210029
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 97-004704
DAMIAN BLACK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right the sentence imposed for his convictions of second-degree
murder, MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,
MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). The trial court sentenced defendant to twenty-three to fifty years’
imprisonment for the second-degree murder conviction and the mandatory consecutive sentence of two
years’ imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. We affirm.
Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that he is entitled to resentencing because his sentence for
the second-degree murder conviction is disproportionate. A trial court’s imposition of a particular
sentence is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion, which will be found where the sentence
imposed does not reasonably reflect the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and
the offender. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).
Defendant’s minimum sentence is within the sentencing guidelines range and is therefore
presumptively proportionate. See People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354; 408 NW2d 789 (1987).
Defendant has failed to present unusual circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption of
proportionality. See People v Lyons, 222 Mich App 319, 324; 564 NW2d 114 (1997). Contrary to
defendant’s argument, his lack of a criminal record and past employment are not considered unusual
circumstances that would overcome the presumption. See People v Daniel, 207 Mich App 47, 54;
523 NW2d 830 (1994). We conclude that defendant’s sentence is proportionate to
-1
the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender. See Milbourn, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.