PEOPLE OF MI V KEVIN THOMPSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 10, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 218913
Wayne Circuit Court
98-009688
KEVIN THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Doctoroff and K.F. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, MCL
750.321; MSA 28.533. The trial court sentenced defendant to eight to fifteen years’
imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the court erred by finding defendant guilty of manslaughter without
specifically addressing self-defense in its findings of fact. We disagree. A trial court’s findings
are sufficient if the record establishes that the court was aware of the relevant issues in the case
and correctly applied the law. People v Smith, 211 Mich App 233, 235; 535 NW2d 248 (1995);
People v Wardlaw, 190 Mich App 318, 321; 475 NW2d 387 (1991).
In this case, the court made several specific findings pertinent to the issue of self-defense.
It is apparent that the trial court was aware that defendant’s actions could constitute self-defense
and determined that the facts did not support the conclusion that defendant honestly and
reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger, there was a serious threat of bodily
harm, or that defendant did not use more force than necessary. People v Kemp, 202 Mich App
318, 322-323; 508 NW2d 184 (1993). Moreover, even though the court did not make a specific
finding regarding self-defense, a court’s failure to find facts does not require remand where it is
manifest that the court was aware of the factual issue and resolved it, and further explication of
the path the court followed in reaching the result would not facilitate our review. People v
Jackson, 390 Mich 621, 627 n 3; 212 NW2d 918 (1973).
Defendant also argues that his sentence is disproportionate and constitutes an abuse of
sentencing discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion where the sentence imposed is not
proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.
People v Poppa, 193 Mich App 184, 187; 483 NW2d 667 (1992).
-1-
Here, defendant’s minimum sentence falls within the sentencing guidelines range.
Sentences within the guidelines range are presumed to be neither excessively severe nor unfairly
disparate. People v Bennett, 241 Mich App 511, 515-516; 616 NW2d 703 (2000). A sentence
within the guidelines range can conceivably violate proportionality in unusual circumstances.
People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 661; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). However, defendant failed to
establish unusual circumstances that would overcome the presumption of proportionality. We
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining defendant’s sentence.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
