PEOPLE OF MI V ANTHONY D WILDER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 26, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 224542
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 98-001499-FH
ANTHONY D. WILDER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Jansen and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree child abuse, MCL
750.136b(3). The trial court sentenced defendant, as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL
769.10, to thirty to seventy-two months’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right and we
affirm.
Defendant’s only claim is that his sentence is excessive. Because the offense occurred
before January 1, 1999, the legislative sentencing guidelines do not apply. MCL 769.34. The
judicial sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the offense do not apply to the sentencing
of habitual offenders. People v Hansford (After Remand), 454 Mich 320, 323; 562 NW2d 460
(1997). We review defendant’s sentence only to determine whether the trial court abused its
discretion. Id. at 323-324. Here, defendant has a prior misdemeanor conviction and three prior
felony convictions, all of which were assaultive offenses. When the present crime was
committed, defendant had absconded from parole from the state of Illinois. The present offense
involved defendant burning a fourteen-month-old girl with an iron on five to seven percent of her
body surface area and she had numerous bruises on her body. Moreover, the sentence falls
within the statutory limits for a second-offense habitual offender, that is, 1 ½ times of the
maximum term (six years) proscribed for the underlying felony (four years). See id. at 326.
Given defendant’s prior criminal history and the extremely serious nature of the current offense,
we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-1-
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.
