If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-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UNPUBLISHED

June 6, 2024

v No. 354686

Eaton Circuit Court

WILLIS MARCELL WILLIAMS, LC No. 19-020162-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and REDFORD and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court for reconsideration of 

defendant’s sentence in light of the Court’s decision in People v Posey, 512 Mich 317; 1 NW3d 

101 (2023).

1

 Finding no abuse of discretion or errors by the trial court warranting resentencing, 

we affirm.2

I. BACKGROUND

A jury convicted defendant of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and resisting or assaulting a 

police officer, MCL 750.81d(1). The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual 

offender, MCL 769.12, to concurrent prison terms of 25 to 40 years for his armed robbery 

conviction, and 5 to 15 years for his resisting or assaulting conviction. Defendant’s 25-year (300 

months) minimum sentence for his armed robbery conviction fell within the sentencing guidelines 

range of 136 to 420 months. Defendant does not challenge the scoring of the guidelines or assert 

 

1 People v Williams, 513 Mich 973; 998 NW2d 697 (2024). In all other respects, our Supreme 

Court denied defendant leave to appeal because defendant failed to persuade it that the remaining 

issues should be reviewed. Id.

2 The Court thanks counsel for their supplemental briefing following remand.
-2-

that the trial court relied on inaccurate information. He protests that his sentence is unreasonably 

harsh and disproportionate.

II. ANALYSIS

Our Supreme Court held and clarified in Posey, 512 Mich at 359, that this Court must 

review within-guidelines sentences for reasonableness. Accordingly, we now address defendant’s 

claim of error in this regard.

We review a trial court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. People v Cain, 

238 Mich App 95, 130; 605 NW2d 28 (1999). An abuse of sentencing discretion occurs where 

the sentence imposed does not reasonably reflect the seriousness of the circumstances of the 

offense and the offender. People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 459-460; 902 NW2d 327 (2017), 

citing People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Thus, when reviewing a 

sentence for reasonableness, we must assess whether the trial court abused its discretion by 

violating the “principle of proportionality” in fashioning the sentence. Steanhouse, 500 Mich 

at 459-460. Within-guidelines sentences are presumptively proportional but are reviewed for 

reasonableness. Posey, 512 Mich at 359. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that 

the within-guidelines sentence is unreasonable and disproportionate. Id.

To appropriately impose sentences, the sentencing court should give “consideration to

reformation of the offender, the protection of society, the discipline of the offender, and the 

deterrence of others from committing the same offense.” People v Boykin, 510 Mich 171, 183; 

987 NW2d 58 (2022). In People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 263; 666 NW2d 231 (2003), our 

Supreme Court explained that the “premise of our system of criminal justice is that, everything 

else being equal, the more egregious the offense, and the more recidivist the criminal, the greater 

the punishment.” Although Posey requires us to analyze defendant’s sentence for reasonableness, 

Posey did not change the fundamental principle articulated in Babcock.

Defendant argues that the trial court did not tailor his sentence to the offense and offender 

because twice before in cases in which he pleaded guilty to armed robbery he only received 

sentences of 10 to 40 years’ imprisonment. He contends that his 25-year minimum sentence is too 

harsh.

Defendant similarly argues his sentence is not proportionate because he was simply an 

aider and abettor, and his codefendant, the person who actually physically went in the store to 

commit the robbery, received a sentence of 70 months to 40 years.

This argument however fails to acknowledge that defendant planned this robbery with 

codefendant Perez. Defendant provided Perez with a firearm and a disguise. Also, Perez had no 

prior convictions. Defendant was on parole for armed robbery at the time of this offense. His 

other convictions included stolen property and assault with intent to cause serious injury. 

Defendant had been previously incarcerated in jail once and in prison twice.

On the record before us, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing

25 to 40 years’ imprisonment for defendant’s armed robbery conviction. The record indicates that, 

despite prior armed robbery and other serious felony convictions for which defendant served 

significant periods of incarceration, defendant planned and engaged in additional armed robberies,
-3-

including the charged offense in this case for which the jury convicted him which he perpetrated 

after recently having been released on parole. Defendant’s criminal record indicates that he did 

not learn from his prior convictions and the discipline imposed upon him. Despite opportunities 

to turn his life in the right direction, he failed to reform.

Defendant stood before the sentencing court as a recidivist convicted criminal, a fourthoffense habitual offender, MCL 769.12. Considering that defendant committed the same offense 

previously and failed to reform, it was neither unreasonable nor an abuse of discretion for the trial 

court to impose a sentence to discipline defendant and provide him time to work toward 

reformation while incarcerated. We conclude that defendant’s 25-year minimum sentence is 

particularly fitting under the circumstances presented in this case. Armed robbery is a very serious 

offense. Resisting or assaulting a police officer also is a very serious offense. Armed robbery

involves violence or the threat of violence to other persons.3 It is axiomatic that society must be 

protected from repeat offenders who commit armed robbery and place citizens in harm’s way and 

cause them to fear for their lives. Further, the sentence imposed by the trial court serves the 

purpose of deterring others from committing armed robbery.

The record establishes that the trial court considered the seriousness of the circumstances 

surrounding the offense and the offender and imposed reasonable and proportionate sentences for 

the crimes of which the jury found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court 

properly sentenced defendant to protect society and to appropriately discipline defendant for his 

criminal conduct with an eye to deter others from engaging in similar criminal behavior. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not err and defendant is not entitled to resentencing.

Affirmed.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ James Robert Redford 

/s/ Christopher P. Yates 

 

3 Under MCL 750.529(2), for offenses committed involving possession of a dangerous weapon or 

an article fashioned in a manner that would lead a person to believe the article is a dangerous 

weapon, such conduct is a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of years.