PEOPLE OF MI V CRAIG V HUDSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 23, 1996
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 178356
LC No. 93-014314
CRAIG V. HUDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Bandstra and M. Warshawsky,* JJ.
GRIFFIN, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in that portion of the majority’s opinion that affirms defendant’s conviction. However,
I respectfully dissent as to the affirmance of defendant’s sentence.
Although defendant’s nine to twenty year sentence is within the sentencing guidelines, the
Supreme Court in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 661; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), recognized that
some sentences that are within the sentencing guidelines may nevertheless be disproportionate. In my
view, this is one of the exceptional cases envisioned by Milbourn. See also People v Moseler, 202
Mich App 296, 300-303; 508 NW2d 192 (1993)(Griffin, J., dissenting).1
OFFENDER
First, I find the background of defendant to be atypical of offenders convicted of assault with
intent to murder. The sentencing judge shared this view. Prior to imposing sentence, Judge Terrance
K. Boyle made the following statement regarding defendant:
I frequently say these days at sentences that this is a sad story. But I just keep
repeating myself. They are all sad stories. But I want to say, honestly, for the
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
record, this is the saddest I ever had for a sentence. Personally, it’s just the saddest,
at least is in terms of promise blown.
The defendant is twenty-nine years old. He is in a stable marriage of almost
seven years. He has one child by that marriage. He has two stepchildren for whom he
provides as well as legal guardianship of his twelve year old sister-in-law. He comes
from a stable family background himself, all of whom are clearly supportive of him.
As I already indicated on the record, the Court received several letters that are
the most well crafted letters I have ever received consistently. They all, each and
everyone of them, is on behalf of the defendant. He has been employed in relatively
long term employment, virtually from the time that he left high school to become
employed full-time.
His last employer has indicated to the probation department clearly that the
defendant was an outstandingly good employee and that, knowing that he has been
convicted and is facing prison, that that employer would hold a job open for him
because he thought that much about how he performed.
There is no evidence of any substance abuse. He never has been in trouble with
the law, at least to the extent that records are available. He never has been arrested
before. If there is anything, if one were to say, nobody can be that good, particularly,
not in today’s society, then if you wanted to look for a negative factor, the only negative
factor you could find in the defendant’s background is that he quit school after the
eleventh grade, but he did that to work full time and he began working full time and he
has been working ever since then in one capacity or another.
Everything here suggests the defendant is a fine young man. Everything
except what happened in this case. It’s a true sad Detroit story. [Emphasis added.]
OFFENSE
As to the crime, defendant was convicted of the serious offense of assault with intent to
murder. The unarmed victim sustained serious personal injuries when he was shot twice. Defendant,
however, did not possess a weapon and did not shoot the victim. Rather, defendant was tried and
convicted on the basis that he aided and abetted the commission of the crime. Specifically, it was the
prosecutor’s theory that defendant was part of a hastily derived scheme or plan in which defendant
agreed to drive his vehicle and position it in such a manner as to allow his passenger an unobstructed
view and opportunity to shoot the victim. Defendant’s role in this serious crime is less than is usual for
offenders convicted of assault with intent to murder.
-2
After a thorough review of the entire file including the trial transcript, sentencing
transcript, presentence report, and the letters of support from defendant’s wife, father, and others, I am
compelled to conclude that defendant’s sentence of nine to twenty years is disproportionate to the
offender and the offense. Milbourn, supra. Accordingly, I would reverse defendant’s sentence and
remand for resentencing to a lesser term of years.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
1
Leave denied 445 Mich 919; 519 NW2d 899 (1994) (Cavanagh, Levin, and Griffin would grant
leave to appeal).
-3
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.