Sufficiency of the evidence for an AWIM conviction; People v Anderson; Intent to kill; People v Kenny; Sentencing; Presumption that a within-guidelines sentence is proportionate; People v Posey; Unusual circumstances; People v Bowling

Holding that there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s intent to kill to support his AWIM conviction, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him within the recommended range, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences. He was also convicted of felony-firearm, and was sentenced to 9 to 30 years for AWIM and 2 years for felony-firearm. As to his AWIM conviction, the court found that he “placed others in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery because he arrived at the park, immediately exited the vehicle, and began running toward” two individuals (CB and LB) with a gun. CB “feared that he would be hit by gunfire and testified that he observed defendant aiming his gun at him. Moreover, the surveillance footage shows at least 15 people scattering across the park after defendant fired the gun, which only further demonstrates the level of apprehension of fear that [he] caused multiple people that day.” The court next concluded that he “had the intent to kill.” His argument that he did not have such intent “because he fired a warning shot rather than aimed to kill is contrary to the video surveillance and testimony presented at trial. The video shows defendant” and two other individuals “arrive at the park in a truck and immediately head toward the playground area on foot.” While CB and LB did not have weapons, defendant sought out CB “and chased him with a gun. Considering the factual circumstances, an intent to kill can be inferred from defendant’s actions depicted on video.” As to his AWIM sentence, he did not “articulate unusual circumstances that would render his presumptively proportionate sentence disproportionate.” While the trial “court did not articulate each proportionality factor specifically, it did not have an obligation to do so.” It determined that the 9- to 30-year sentence was “reasonable ‘based upon deterrence and punishment.’ The [trial] court considered the offense and the offender because [it] acknowledged defendant’s minimal criminal history and a fact pattern that included going to a public park, ‘getting out of the car and going after someone and pointing a gun and shooting it.’”