Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Henderson; Credibility of witnesses; People v. Kanaan; Principle that whether a firearm was operable is not an element of felon in possession (FIP), carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), or felony-firearm; People v. Humphrey; Sentencing; Principle that while the trial court must score & consider the sentencing guidelines, it is not compelled to impose a minimum sentence within the calculated range; People v. Lockridge; Proportionality; People v. Steanhouse

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's firearm-related convictions, and that the trial court’s sentence was reasonable. He was convicted of FIP, CCW, and felony-firearm, second offense, for threatening his ex-girlfriend and her parents with a gun. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to serve concurrent terms of 4 to 10 years’ imprisonment each for his FIP and CCW convictions, and a consecutive term of 5 years for his felony-firearm conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because there was no physical evidence that he ever possessed a gun, and the only witness who claimed to see him with a gun was biased against him. “Viewing the mother’s testimony in a light most favorable to the prosecution, her statements that defendant approached her with a handgun in his hand and threatened to shoot her were sufficient to establish that defendant possessed a firearm.” Further, the prosecution was not required to establish that the firearm was operable, and “a rational jury could find that the [victim’s] mother—who was familiar with handguns and owned a handgun—would be able to tell the difference between a real firearm and a toy firearm at a distance of 20 feet.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court imposed unreasonable sentences for FIP and CCW because it sentenced him to serve 4 to 10 years’ imprisonment, when his guidelines recommended a sentencing range of 46 months’ imprisonment. “The trial court considered defendant’s conduct during and after the offense and found that a sentence of 48 to 120 months’ imprisonment was more appropriate.” Affirmed.