Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Hampton; In re Winship; People v. Hardiman; Felon in possession (FIP); People v. Bass; People v. Perkins; Felony-firearm; People v. Avant; Constructive possession; People v. Johnson; People v. Hill; People v. Burgenmeyer; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v. Lyons; People v. Albert; Review of a within-guidelines sentence; MCL 769.34(10); People v. Kimble; People v. Broden; Cruel & unusual punishment; People v. Brown; People v. Poole; Principle that a proportionate sentence is not cruel or unusual punishment; People v. Drohan; People v. Powell

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant possessed the gun at issue, and that his sentence was appropriate. He was convicted of FIP and felony-firearm, second offense, in this case involving the killing of the victim and burning of her body. The trial court sentenced him as a third habitual offender to 2 years and 10 months to 10 years for FIP, to be served consecutively to a 5-year term for felony-firearm. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to show he possessed the gun found in his vehicle, noting his “own testimony demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he at least constructively possessed the firearm because he knew the firearm’s location and could access it.” It next declined to review his claim that his sentence for FIP was unreasonable and disproportionate because he did not allege that the trial court relied on a scoring error or inaccurate information in determining his within-guidelines sentence. In addition, because his sentence was presumptively proportionate, it was not cruel or unusual punishment. Affirmed.