-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

January 9, 2018

v No. 330960

Calhoun Circuit Court

BRETT EDWARD BALDRIDGE, LC No. 2015-000919-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant, Brett Edward Baldridge, of assault with intent to commit

murder (AWIM), MCL 750.83, first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), two 

corresponding counts of use of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), 

MCL 750.227b, and aggravated stalking, MCL 750.411i(2). The trial court sentenced Baldridge

to 225 months to 40 years for AWIM, 95 months to 240 months for home invasion, two 

consecutive sentences of 24 months each for each count of felony-firearm, and 24 months to 60 

months for aggravated stalking.

1 The trial court ordered the sentences for AWIM and home 

invasion to run consecutively both during the original sentencing and on resentencing. Baldridge

appeals by right his AWIM conviction and his consecutive sentences. We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Baldridge and the victim started dating in May 2013. The victim ended their relationship 

in November 2014, and Baldridge moved out of the house. After the break-up, Baldridge once 

returned to the house with the victim’s permission to help her when she was sick. Baldridge later 

began showing up at the victim’s house unannounced. When the victim told Baldridge that she 

no longer wanted to speak to him, he persisted in messaging her, alternating between begging her 

 1 After filing the claim of appeal, Baldridge filed a motion to remand for resentencing, which this 

Court granted, People v Baldridge, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 20, 

2017 (Docket No. 330960). On remand, the trial court reassessed prior record variable 5 at zero 

points and resentenced Baldridge accordingly. The sentences listed are the sentences ordered on 

resentencing. 
-2-

to take him back and threatening to kill her and himself. By December 2014, the victim stopped 

responding to Baldridge’s messages, had the locks changed, and obtained a protective order. 

On the night of December 24, 2014, Baldridge broke into the victim’s house while she 

was asleep. The victim woke up to find the lights on in her bedroom and Baldridge standing 

over her bed, scrolling through her phone. Baldridge threw the phone against the wall when the 

victim tried to take it from him. At this point, the victim noticed that Baldridge had a shotgun. 

Afraid that he was going to kill her, the victim tried to take the shotgun, but Baldridge quickly 

grabbed it back and kept hold of it. Baldridge and the victim argued because she wanted him to 

leave. Baldridge pointed the shotgun at the victim and shot her in the leg, hitting her right inner 

thigh and disrupting a major artery. Baldridge called 911 and told the 911 operator there had 

been a murder-suicide. At the same time, the victim was screaming for help. A transcription of 

the 911 call shows that Baldridge said he was “blowing [his] head off right now” and was “going 

to blow [her] head off before they get here.” While he was on the phone with the 911 operator, 

Baldridge fired a shot into the ceiling. Baldridge left before the police arrived. 

When police officers arrived at the victim’s house, they broke the victim’s bedroom 

window, covered the broken glass with pillows, pulled the victim out through the window, and 

took her to a nearby intersection to wait for an ambulance because she looked like she was 

starting to go into shock. A trauma surgeon described the seriousness of the wound, explaining 

that the shotgun was a high-velocity weapon that caused extensive tissue damage to the area 

surrounding impact and stopped circulation to the leg. The victim required immediate surgery to 

save her life and to reestablish circulation to the leg to avoid amputation. She had ten more 

surgeries over the course of several months after the shooting. 

At sentencing, the victim described the effects of the assault and the gunshot wound. She 

was in treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. She lost her job, her home, and her 

independence. Unable to live alone, she depended on family and friends because daily activities, 

like walking up and down stairs and getting in and out of a car, were now arduous or impossible. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 

Baldridge argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find intent to murder 

because he shot the victim in the leg and called 911 after he shot her. We disagree. 

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v Lueth, 253 

Mich App 670, 680; 660 NW2d 322 (2002). This Court views the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution “to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the 

essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Bennett, 290 

Mich App 465, 471-472; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). We “must draw all reasonable inferences and 

make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 

613; 806 NW2d 371 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“The elements of assault with intent to commit murder are: (1) an assault, (2) with an 

actual intent to kill, (3) which, if successful, would make the killing murder.” People v Brown, 

267 Mich App 141, 147; 703 NW2d 230 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted). AWIM 
-3-

is a specific intent crime. Id. at 148. An “intent to inflict great bodily harm or a wanton and 

willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of the acts will likely cause death or 

great bodily harm” does not equate to an intent to commit murder. Id. at 150, quoting People v 

Taylor, 422 Mich 554, 567; 375 NW2d 1 (1985). “Circumstantial evidence and reasonable 

inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a 

crime.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). The jury may infer intent from “the nature of the defendant’s acts constituting 

the assault; the temper or disposition of mind with which they were apparently performed, 

whether the instrument and means used were naturally adapted to produce death, his conduct and 

declarations prior to, at the time, and after the assault, and all other circumstances calculated to 

throw light upon the intention with which the assault was made.” Taylor, 422 Mich at 568

(quotation marks and citation omitted). The jury may also “infer intent to kill from the use of a 

dangerous weapon.” People v DeLisle, 202 Mich App 658, 672; 509 NW2d 885 (1993). 

In this case, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a 

reasonable jury could conclude that Baldridge intended to commit murder. Baldridge threatened 

to kill the victim before the assault and during the assault, also stating that threat to the 911 

operator after shooting the victim. The victim repeatedly described Baldridge as being mad 

during the assault, causing her to fear for her life. After he turned himself in, Baldridge admitted 

to the police that he was familiar with guns. In addition, the “high-velocity” type of shotgun that 

he used for hunting inflicted a life-threatening injury, and Baldridge admitted to the police that 

he knew the inherent danger of guns. Therefore, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to 

justify a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldridge assaulted the 

victim with the intent to commit murder. 

B. SENTENCING 

Baldridge next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that the 

sentences for the AWIM conviction and the first-degree home invasion conviction run

consecutively to each other without providing specific reasons for doing so and without 

considering mitigating factors. We disagree. 

The home invasion statute gives sentencing courts the discretion to impose a consecutive 

sentence for first-degree home invasion. MCL 750.110a(8). We review a trial court’s decision 

to order a consecutive sentence “for an abuse of discretion, i.e., whether the trial court’s decision 

was outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 

649, 654; 897 NW2d 195 (2016). The sentencing court must “set forth the specific reasons 

underlying its decision.” Id. at 664. Although there is no dispositive list of factors the trial court 

should consider in ordering consecutive sentences, a trial court must speak in more than “general 

terms” when ordering consecutive sentencing. See id. at 666. 

We conclude that the trial court provided specific reasons supporting its decision to order 

consecutive sentences for AWIM and first-degree home invasion. The trial court explained the 

extent of the fear inspired by the circumstances, beginning with stalking and culminating in 

Baldridge’s breaking into what should have been the safety of the victim’s bedroom and shooting 

her. The trial court described the circumstances as “unique enough, violent enough,” and scary 
-4-

enough to justify consecutive sentences. The trial court adequately explained its reasoning, so it 

did not abuse its discretion by determining that the offenses warranted consecutive sentences.2 

In sum, we affirm Baldridge’s conviction for AWIM and the trial court’s imposition of 

consecutive sentences for AWIM and first-degree home invasion. 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

 2 Baldridge contends that, on resentencing, the trial court improperly relied on the reasoning of 

the now-retired judge who presided over the trial and originally sentenced Baldridge. The 

second judge’s comments about the original judge’s experience and reasoning signaled 

agreement with the original judge’s reasoning, not an abdication of decision-making. Moreover, 

the second judge independently gave specific reasons for ordering consecutive sentences.