PEOPLE OF MI V RAYMOND EUGENE CHASTAIN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 21, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 216724 Muskegon Circuit Court 98-042009-FC RAYMOND EUGENE CHASTAIN, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Meter, P.J., and Fitzgerald and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(b); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(b), and was sentenced as an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084, to twenty to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence imposed is disproportionate. We disagree. As a fourth felony offender, defendant was subject to a possible penalty of life in prison. MCL 769.12(a); MSA 28.1084(a). However, despite the fact that the sentencing guidelines do not apply to habitual offenders, People v Gatewood, 450 Mich 1025; 546 NW2d 252 (1996), the trial court sentenced defendant within the guidelines for the underlying offense. A sentence within the guidelines is presumptively proportionate. People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354-355; 408 NW2d 789 (1987). Defendant has not presented any unusual circumstances to overcome the presumption. People v Daniel, 207 Mich App 47, 54; 523 NW2d 830 (1994). The sentence imposed is proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Affirmed. /s/ Patrick M. Meter /s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald /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.