(1) MR RICHARDS WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO SELF REPRESENTATION BY THE TRIAL COURTS SUMMARY DENIAL OF HIS TIMELY REQUEST TO GO PRO SE

(2) MR RICHARDS WAS DENIED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN BAD FAITH. THIS COURT MUST REVERSE HIS CONVICTION

(3) THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE THAT IS PROPORTIONATE TO MR. RICHARDS 'S CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS OFFENSES AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING

(A) HISTORICALLY, MILBOURN REVIEW HAS ALWAYS INCLUDED A MECHANISM FOR ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT A SENTENCE WITHIN THE CONTROLLING GUIDELINES RANGE IS PROPORTIONATE

(B) MCL 769.34(10) VIOLATES THE RULE OF LOCKRIDGE BY PRECLUDING DEFENDANTS FROM CHALLENGING DISPROPORTIONATE SENTENCES THAT HAPPEN TO FALL WITHIN A GUIDELINES RANGE CALCULATED THROUGH THE USE OF FACTS FOUND BY A JUDGE, NOT A JURY.

(C) MR. RICHARDS'S 46 MONTH MINIMUM SENTENCE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO HIS CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS CRIMES

(4) A SENTENCE NEAR THE TOP OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES RANGE CONSTITUTES CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR AN OFFENDER WITH SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

(5) THE TOP END OF THE SENTENCE FOR SPITTING ON A GUARD IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL BECAUSE WITH APPELLANT 'S CONDITION OF ASPERGER 'S SYNDROME 40 YEARS IS A DEATH SENTENCE

(A) DEFENDANT 'S SENTENCE IS DISPROPORTIONATE AND DISPARATE; THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SIGNIFICANT MITIGATING FACTORS AND FAILED TO TAILOR THE SENTENCE TO THE INDIVIDUAL OFFENDER

(B) DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 'S MISLEADING THIS HONORABLE COURT RE: THE PSIR

Question not identified