PEOPLE OF MI V HILLIARD JAMES BALDRIDGE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 26, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 221837
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 99-016880-FC
HILLIARD JAMES BALDRIDGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Griffin and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA
28.277, and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). Defendant was sentenced to the
mandatory two years’ imprisonment for his felony-firearm conviction and was sentenced as a
fourth habitual offender for his felonious assault conviction, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084, to
seven to fifteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of
felonious assault and felony-firearm. We disagree. This Court reviews issues regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a
rational trier of fact could find all the necessary elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 268; 380 NW2d 11 (1985).
The crime of felonious assault consists of an assault with a dangerous weapon done with
the intent to injure or place the victim in apprehension of an immediate battery. People v Jones,
443 Mich 88, 100; 504 NW2d 158 (1993); People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 505; 597 NW2d
864 (1999); MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277.
The evidence overwhelmingly showed that defendant intentionally fired a firearm at the
victim with the intent of injuring him, if not killing him – he brandished a firearm and threatened
to “pop” – or shoot – his victim, then shot the victim in his abdomen. The intentional firing of a
firearm at someone is an assault. People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 349; 492 NW2d 810
(1992). Not only did defendant brandish a firearm, threaten to shoot the victim, and then shoot
the victim in his abdomen, there was sufficient evidence that defendant fired a second shot at the
victim that grazed his head. This evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s felonious
assault conviction.
-1-
Moreover, there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of felony-firearm because
he assaulted his victim with a gun intending at the very least to inflict injury. The elements of
felony-firearm were met because defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of a
felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277. Avant, supra at 506-507; MCL 750.227b; MSA
28.424(2).
Defendant next argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court imposed a
disproportionate sentence. We disagree. This Court reviews sentences imposed on habitual
offenders for an abuse of discretion. People v Hansford (After Remand), 454 Mich 320, 323324; 562 NW2d 460 (1997); People v Cervantes, 448 Mich 620, 627; 532 NW2d 831 (1995).
Under the principle of proportionality, this Court must determine if a defendant’s
sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the
specific offender. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 635-636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). The
sentencing guidelines do not apply to habitual offenders. Hansford, supra at 323-324. A trial
court does not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence on an habitual offender that is within
the statutory limits where his underlying felony, and previous felonies, show that he cannot
conform his conduct to the law. Hansford, supra at 326.
Pursuant to MCL 769.12(1)(b); MSA 28.1084(1)(b), defendant could have been
sentenced to a maximum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment as a fourth habitual offender.
Consequently, his sentence of seven to fifteen years’ imprisonment is within the statutory limits
and is, therefore, proportionate to his criminal record and the circumstances of this case.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
