People of Michigan v. Brandon Darcel Vaughn, 346240

On Feb 20, 2018, defendant Brandon Vaughn was present at a Detroit liquor store after a dispute; multiple gunshots were fired and victim Davaughn West sustained numerous gunshot wounds.
Witness Darrian Baker testified he saw Vaughn flee carrying a black semiautomatic handgun and that Vaughn fired the weapon; West denied knowing Vaughn or seeing his shooter.
A jury acquitted Vaughn of several felonies (including attempted murder and multiple felony-firearm counts) but convicted him of carrying a concealed weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of felony-firearm.
At sentencing the trial court (after correcting OV 12) calculated a habitual-offender guidelines minimum range of 9 to 46 months and imposed concurrent 46 months–20 years for CCW and felon-in-possession, plus a consecutive 2 years for felony-firearm, sentencing Vaughn as a fourth habitual offender.
Vaughn appealed, arguing (1) his within-guidelines sentence was disproportionate and improperly based on his habitual status/youth and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

Issue	People’s Argument	Vaughn’s Argument	Held
Whether a within-guidelines sentence must be vacated as disproportionate	Guidelines sentence is presumptively proportionate under MCL 769.34(10); affirm absent scoring error or inaccurate info	Sentence at top of range (46 mo) was disproportionate; unusual circumstances existed	Affirmed: within-range sentence must be upheld; Vaughn did not present unusual circumstances at sentencing
Whether the court improperly based sentence on youth/habitual status or need to protect community	Court permissibly considered criminal record and convictions; did not punish acquittals	Court relied on habitual status and youth to justify harsh sentence without victims of convicted offenses	Affirmed: court based sentence on convictions and criminal history; no abuse of discretion
Whether MCL 769.34(10) is invalid after Lockridge	MCL 769.34(10) remains valid; Lockridge left § 34(10) intact and guidelines are advisory	Statute creates an impermissible mandatory presumption of proportionality post-Lockridge	Rejected: Lockridge did not alter § 34(10); presumption is rebuttable and guidelines remain a relevant consideration
Whether defense counsel was ineffective at sentencing	Counsel advocated for low-end sentence, corrected OV12 scoring, and preserved objections	Counsel was unprepared/surprised by verdict and failed to advocate, prejudicing sentencing outcome	Rejected: claim unpreserved; record shows reasonable performance and no prejudice

People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (held Michigan sentencing guidelines are advisory but must be consulted)
People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 (2016) (recognized Lockridge left MCL 769.34(10) intact)
People v Odom, 327 Mich App 297 (2019) (discussed sentencing discretion and relevance of guidelines)
People v Lee, 243 Mich App 163 (2000) (unusual circumstances required to overcome presumption of proportionality)
People v Armisted, 295 Mich App 32 (2011) (within-guidelines sentence is presumptively proportionate)
Trakhtenberg v People, 493 Mich 38 (2012) (standards for evaluating ineffective assistance at sentencing)
Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1 (1999) (defendant bears burden to establish factual predicate for ineffective-assistance claim)