PEOPLE OF MI V DONALD BUXTON

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED July 11, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 222329 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 97-500107 DONALD BUXTON, Defendant-Appellee. Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hood and Saad, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant pleaded guilty of delivery of more than 50 grams but less than 225 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iii). The trial court found substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the mandatory ten-year minimum sentence and sentenced defendant to time served (560 days) and five years probation (three years on tether). The prosecution appeals by leave granted, arguing only that the sentence imposed is invalid because it deviates from the statutory minimum sentence of ten years. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). The prosecution’s appeal brief fails to acknowledge MCL 333.7401(4); MSA 14.15(7401)(4), which authorizes a trial court to deviate downward from a statutory minimum sentence for substantial and compelling reasons, and fails to analyze in any meaningful manner whether the reasons for deviation that were proffered by defense counsel at the sentencing hearing (and apparently relied on by the trial court) were objective and verifiable, as required by People v Fields, 448 Mich 58; 528 NW2d 176 (1995). Accordingly, we conclude that appellant has waived this issue on appeal by failing to support its argument with citation to relevant portions of the factual record or citation to applicable legal authority. See People v Rollins, 207 Mich App 465, 468; 525 NW2d 484 (1994). In any event, having reviewed the record, we conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither invalid nor does it constitute an abuse of sentencing discretion. Fields, supra. -1­ Affirmed. /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Henry William Saad -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.