PEOPLE OF MI V BRINSON HAMILTON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 225807
Genessee Circuit Court
LC No. 99-004697-FC
BRINSON HAMILTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Sawyer and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his convictions, following a jury trial, of felonious
assault, MCL 750.82, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL
750.227b. Defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12, to a
term of ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the assault conviction, to be served consecutively
to the mandatory two-year term for the felony-firearm conviction. We affirm.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that his assault sentence violates the principle of
proportionality. We disagree. Because defendant committed these offenses before January 1,
1999, the legislative sentencing guidelines are not applicable. MCL 769.34(1); People v
Reynolds, 240 Mich App 250, 254; 611 NW2d 316 (2000).1 We review sentencing issues for an
abuse of discretion. People v Rice (On Remand), 235 Mich App 429, 445; 597 NW2d 843
(1999). This Court reviews the sentence to determine if it violates the principle of
proportionality. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). “[A] given
sentence can be said to constitute an abuse of discretion if that sentence violates the principle of
proportionality, which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the
seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” Id.
We disagree with defendant’s contention that his sentence violated the principle of
proportionality. Defendant’s despicable criminal act inflicted grievous consequences on the
victim, Brent Diggs, that will affect him for the rest of his life. As a result of shooting Diggs in
the back as he attempted to flee, defendant rendered Diggs paralyzed from the chest down.
1
Because defendant was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, the judicial sentencing
guidelines were also inapplicable. People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656,
661; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).
-1-
Moreover, as the trial court noted, defendant had been convicted of five prior felonies and two
misdemeanors. Various penalties, such as imprisonment, parole and probation, have been
unsuccessful in affecting defendant’s recidivism. Considering the severity of this offense, as
well as defendant’s inability to conform his behavior to the requirements of law, we are satisfied
that the trial court’s sentence did not amount to an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
