Sentencing; Whether the defendant’s sentence (as a fourth habitual offender) of 9 to 20 years for larceny from the person constituted “cruel or unusual punishment”; People v. Nunez; Presumptions that a within guidelines sentence is proportionate & a proportionate sentence is not cruel or unusual punishment; People v. Bowling; People v. Lee; Effect of a defendant’s age; People v. Lemons; “Plain error” review; People v. Carines; Scoring of OV 13; MCL 777.43(1)(d); Motion to suppress evidence on the basis the arresting officer lacked “probable cause”; People v. Cohen; Claim defendant was denied a fair trial due to judicial bias; People v. Jackson; Admission of a casino surveillance video & a casino machine printout; Whether the video was properly authenticated; MRE 901(a) & (b)(1); The “best evidence rule”; MRE 1002; People v. Alexander; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v. Herndon; Alleged Brady v. Maryland violation; People v. Chenault; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Rodgers; People v. Heft; People v. Solmonson; Factual predicate requirement; People v. Carbin; Standby counsel; People v. Willing; People v. Kevorkian

[Unpublished opinion.] Holding that the defendant’s 9 to 20-year sentence as a fourth habitual offender for larceny from the person was not cruel or unusual punishment, and rejecting his numerous claims raised in a Standard 4 brief, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences. He was also convicted of larceny in a building, for which he was sentenced to one to four years. The convictions arose from his theft of a winning slot machine ticket from an elderly victim. Defendant did not dispute that his sentence was within the minimum guidelines range. Rather, he argued that it was disproportionate because his age, 56 years old, and his “poor mental health” constituted “unusual circumstances that render his presumptively proportionate sentence disproportionate.” However, age and mental health “are not factors that amount to unusual circumstances.” The Michigan Supreme Court has “held that a court is not required to consider a defendant’s age in determining whether a sentence is disproportionate.” Further, defendant did not support his argument with any authority indicating “that a court is required to consider mental health factors when determining the proportionality of a sentence.” Thus, he failed to provide unusual circumstances rendering his within guidelines sentence disproportionate. As to his Standard 4 brief arguments, the court held, among other things, that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant. The facts and circumstances within the officer’s “knowledge, of which he had reasonably trustworthy information from the casino surveillance video, were sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that a larceny had been committed and that defendant had committed it.” As to the scoring of OV 13, he had a prior larceny from the person conviction in 2011. That conviction, paired with his convictions in this case, showed “a pattern of felonious criminal activity involving a combination of three crimes against a person or property.” Thus, the trial court properly scored OV 13 at 10 points.