PEOPLE OF MI V ALLEN D HUDSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 1, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 237505
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 01-177436-FH
ALLEN D. HUDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Neff and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for first-degree home invasion,
MCL 750.110a(2). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant challenges the limitation on appellate review of sentences imposed
by MCL 769.34(10). Defendant failed to raise this issue below and review is limited to plain
error. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Given defendant’s record,
there is no showing that the Court would find an abuse of sentencing discretion, even if
proportionality review were to be employed. There is no plain error.
The Legislature has the power to determine the parameters of a sentence. People v
Hegwood, 465 Mich 432; 636 NW2d 127 (2001). The ultimate authority to provide penalties for
criminal offenses is vested in the Legislature. Const 1963, art 4, § 45. A judge’s discretion to
depart from the range stated in the guidelines statute is limited by those circumstances in which
such a departure is allowed by the Legislature. Hegwood, supra at 439.
The right to appeal is strictly a matter of legislative prerogative, and it is solely within the
Legislature’s province to determine in what cases, under what circumstances, and from what
courts appeals may be taken. People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 533; 339 NW2d 440 (1983). The
Legislature did not intend to incorporate the principle of proportionality into the new sentencing
review framework. People v Babcock, 244 Mich App 64, 78; 624 NW2d 479 (2000). The
Legislature did not infringe on the constitutional power of the judiciary by eliminating appellate
proportionality review of sentences within the guidelines range. Id. at 71-73.
In his supplemental brief filed in propria persona, defendant appears to argue that error
requiring reversal occurred because of an alleged technical defect in the information or amended
-1-
information. However, because defendant does not cite any authority in support of this
argument, we consider it abandoned. People v Canter, 199 Mich App 550, 563-564; 496 NW2d
336 (1992); People v Sowders, 164 Mich App 36, 49; 417 NW2d 78 (1987).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
