COA 370540 PEOPLE OF MI V NICHOLAS PAUL STAMPER Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 4/28/2026

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UNPUBLISHED
April 28, 2026
1:48 PM
v No. 370540
Jackson Circuit Court
NICHOLAS PAUL STAMPER, LC No. 2022-000703-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and REDFORD and PATEL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial convictions of assault with intent to commit
murder, MCL 750.83; assault with intent to maim, MCL 750.86; mayhem, MCL 750.397; and
tampering with evidence, MCL 750.483a(6)(b). The trial court sentenced defendant as a second-
offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to serve 20 to 30 years’ imprisonment for the assault-with-
intent-to-commit-murder charge, concurrent with 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment each for the assault-
with-intent-to-maim, mayhem, and tampering-with-evidence charges. On appeal, defendant
argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court erred when it scored offense
variables (OV) 3, 4, and 7. We affirm.
I. UNDERLYING FACTS
On February 22, 2022, police officers found the victim, defendant’s coworker, completely
naked from the waist down and curled in the fetal position in the bathtub of a motel room bathroom.
The victim was severely beaten, his right ear had been torn from his head, his eyes were swollen
shut, and he was barely conscious and unable to speak. There was blood on the bathroom floor,
bedroom carpet, and ceiling of the room he was found in.
The victim was transported to a local hospital where it was determined that he had suffered
significant injuries including: “a traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, a
fracture of the orbital floor on the left and right sides, malar fracture, fracture of the left orbital
wall, contusion on the neck, traumatic pneumothorax, and a partial traumatic amputation of the
right ear.” The victim underwent several surgeries to treat his injuries, was comatose at one point,

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
and had several surgeries to reconstruct his ear. The victim also suffered a traumatic brain injury
that affected several of his cognitive functions like memory and communication.
The investigation into the assault revealed that defendant had assaulted the victim and left
him half naked in the motel room bathtub for over 36 hours. During the assault, defendant sent
his coworker/friend numerous pictures and videos that he had taken. The pictures and videos
depicted the victim severely beaten and bloody, defendant covered in blood, and blood throughout
the motel room. The videos also depicted defendant punching or kicking the victim in the head as
he laid barely conscious on the bathroom floor, covered in blood. All of the photographs and
videos were admitted into evidence at trial without objection.
As stated, a jury found defendant guilty of assault with intent to murder, assault with intent
to maim, mayhem, and tampering with evidence. At sentencing, defendant objected, in relevant
part, to the scoring of OVs 3, 4, and 7. The trial court assessed 25 points for OV 3, 10 points for
OV 4, and 50 points for OV 7. Defendant’s minimum sentencing guidelines range was calculated
at 171 to 356 months’ (about 14 to 30 years) imprisonment.1 The trial court sentenced defendant
as stated earlier. This appeal followed.
II. OFFENSE VARIABLES
Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it assessed 25 points for OV 3, 10 points
for OV 4, and 50 points for OV 7. We disagree.
“Under the sentencing guidelines, a trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error
and must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” People v Thompson, 314 Mich App
703, 708; 887 NW2d 650 (2016). “[T]he clear-error standard requires us to affirm unless we are
definitely and firmly convinced the trial court made a mistake . . . .” People v Ziegler, 343 Mich
App 406, 410; 997 NW2d 493 (2022). “A scoring decision is not clearly erroneous if the record
contains any evidence in support of the decision.” People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 182; 814
NW2d 295 (2012) (cleaned up). “Whether the facts, as found, are adequate to satisfy the scoring
conditions prescribed by statute, i.e., the application of the facts to the law, is a question of statutory
interpretation, which an appellate court reviews de novo.” Ziegler, 343 Mich App at 411 (cleaned
up).
“When calculating the sentencing guidelines, a court may consider all record evidence,
including the contents of a [presentence investigation report (PSIR)], plea admissions, and
testimony presented at a preliminary examination.” People v McChester, 310 Mich App 354, 358;
873 NW2d 646 (2015). “The trial court may also consider victim-impact statements, and may
make reasonable inferences from evidence in the record.” People v Montague, 338 Mich App 29,
55, 979 NW2d 406 (2021).
1 See MCL 777.21(3)(a); MCL 777.16d; MCL 777.62.

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
A. OV 3
Defendant argues the trial court erred by assessing 25 points for OV 3. Defendant contends
that the trial court should have assessed 10 points because there was no evidence the victim’s
injury was life threatening or permanently incapacitating. OV 3 is scored when there “is physical
injury to a victim.” MCL 777.33(1). “OV 3 designates the number of points to be assessed for
physical injury to a victim.” People v Johnson, 342 Mich App 90, 94; 992 NW2d 668 (2022),
citing MCL 777.33(1). The statute requires an assessment of 25 points for OV 3 when “[l]ife
threatening or permanent incapacitating injury occurred to a victim[,]” MCL 777.33(1)(c), and 10
points when “[b]odily injury requiring medical treatment occurred to a victim[,]” MCL
777.33(1)(d). Although the statute does not define “life threatening,” this Court has explained that
it “require[es] some evidence indicating that the injuries were, in normal course, potentially fatal.”
People v Chaney, 327 Mich App 586, 590-591; 935 NW2d 66 (2019). Because “there are many
conditions that if not treated can become life-threatening,” this “review must take into account the
effect of medical treatment.” Id. at 591 n 4. The statute also does not provide a definition of
“permanently incapacitating.” This Court has determined that an assignment of 25 points is
warranted when the evidence showed that the victims “had been severely injured in ways that
continued to significantly incapacitate them in their daily lives and that it was very possible they
would never fully recover.” People v Teike, 348 Mich App 520, 527; 19 NW3d 733 (2023).
Medical testimony is not required to establish that an injury is permanently incapacitating or life
threatening. People v McCuller (On Remand), 479 Mich 672, 697 n 19; 739 NW2d 563 (2007).
The trial court’s assessment of 25 points for OV 3 was supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. The record demonstrated that the victim suffered a traumatic subdural hemorrhage.
The victim was rendered unconscious and was in a coma for a significant period of time. The
victim suffered changes to several cognitive functions, including his memory and his ability to
communicate. At the time of sentencing, the victim was still participating in a therapeutic program
for traumatic brain injuries. The evidence demonstrated that the victim had been severely injured
in a way that continued to significantly incapacitate him in his daily life. Although the victim had
made some improvement since the incident, it was possible that he would never fully recover.
Defendant took several videos of himself violently beating the unconscious and defenseless
victim. He also photographed the bloody aftermath of the violent beatings. The videos show
defendant mercilessly striking the victim’s bloody head to the tile floor of the bathroom multiple
times. The videos and photographs also depict the victim bleeding from the head, neck and
elsewhere. This evidence in conjunction with that highlighted above demonstrate beyond question
that the victim suffered life-threatening and permanently disabling injuries. The trial court
correctly scored 25 points for OV 3.
B. OV 4
Defendant next argues the trial court erred by assessing 10 points for OV 4. Defendant
contends that the trial court should have assessed 0 points because there was no evidence the victim
suffered serious psychological injury. OV 4 is scored when there is “psychological injury to a
victim.” MCL 777.34(1). OV 4 is assessed 10 points when a “[s]erious psychological injury
requiring professional treatment occurred to the victim[.]” MCL 777.34(1)(a). OV 4 is assessed
0 points when “[n]o serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment occurred to the

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
victim[.]” MCL 777.34(1)(c). However, “the fact that treatment has not been sought is not
conclusive.” MCL 777.34(2). “The trial court may assess 10 points for OV 4 if the victim suffers,
among other possible psychological effects, personality changes, anger, fright, or feelings of being
hurt, unsafe, or violated.” People v Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230, 247; 851 NW2d 856 (2014).
While actual treatment is not required for scoring OV 4, the trial court may consider evidence that
a victim sought counseling. People v Davenport (After Remand), 286 Mich App 191, 200; 779
NW2d 257 (2009). But a trial court may not score OV 4 based on the assumption that a victim of
the crime at issue would generally suffer psychological injury. People v White, 501 Mich 160,
163; 905 NW2d 228 (2017).
The trial court’s assessment of 10 points for OV 4 was supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. The victim testified at trial that he still suffered from flashbacks and nightmares of
the assault (two years after the assault), that he had been going to therapy sessions, that he was
“still working on” feeling like how he felt before the assault, and that he was engaging in a program
called “Magnolia House” that also included therapy. This testimony clearly indicates that the
victim suffered a serious psychological injury beyond the trauma expected of defendant’s assault
and that he sought and obtained professional treatment for that injury. On this record, we are not
definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake by assessing 10 points for OV 4.
C. OV 7
Defendant further argues that the trial court erred by assessing 50 points for OV 7.
Defendant contends that the trial court should have assessed 0 points because there was no
evidence that he engaged in aggravated physical abuse. There is zero merit to this assignment of
error. OV 7 is scored when there is “aggravated physical abuse.” MCL 777.37(1). OV 7 is
assessed 50 points when “[a] victim was treated with sadism, torture, excessive brutality, or
similarly egregious conduct designed to substantially increase the fear and anxiety a victim
suffered during the offense[.]” MCL 777.37(1)(a). Absent such conduct, the score will be zero.
MCL 777.37(1)(b).
“A trial court can assess 50 points under OV 7 if it finds that a defendant’s conduct falls
under one of the four categories of conduct listed in subsection (1)(a).” People v Hardy, 494 Mich
430, 439-440; 835 NW2d 340 (2013). The four categories in OV 7 that justify a score of 50 points
are distinct alternatives. Id. at 441; People v Walker, 330 Mich App 378, 389-390; 948 NW2d 122
(2019). In this case, the trial court found that defendant’s actions fell under the ground of
“excessive brutality.” Contrary to defendant’s assertion, there is no requirement that the
prosecution establish that defendant engaged in “similarly egregious conduct designed to
substantially increase the fear and anxiety a victim suffered during the offense.” Walker, 330 Mich
App at 389-390. “In other words, if a defendant treated a victim with excessive brutality, 50 points
should be scored under OV 7 even if the defendant did not intend to substantially increase the
victim’s fear and anxiety.” Id. at 389. The statute does not define “excessive brutality.” This
Court has defined “excessive brutality” to mean “savagery or cruelty beyond the ‘usual’ brutality
of a crime.” Id. at 391 (cleaned up).
The trial court’s determination that defendant treated the victim with excessive brutality is
uncontradicted by the evidence. The videos taken by the defendant depict him violently punching,
kicking, and stomping on the unconscious and helpless victim’s blood-covered head while

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
shouting at the victim. The videos demonstrate defendant’s clear intention to make the victim
suffer and show beyond question his excessive brutality directed against the victim.
The victim sustained significant trauma to his head resulting in a traumatic brain injury and
bleeding in his brain, as well as fractures of his cheekbones and the amputation of his ear. Photos
and videos of the victim’s injuries were admitted at trial, including videos of defendant kicking
and punching the victim in the head while he lay unconscious or unmoving on the floor. The
evidence revealed that defendant left the victim lying in a bathtub, half naked and bleeding, for
over 36 hours. There was also evidence that defendant may have shaved the victim’s head at some
point during the assault. The record supports the trial court’s determination that defendant engaged
in excessive brutality. See id.2
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Riordan
/s/ James Robert Redford
/s/ Sima G. Patel
2 In Walker, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after “beating his neighbor to
death.” Id. at 384-385. The Walker Court concluded that a preponderance of the evidence
supported the trial court’s finding that the defendant treated the victim with excessive brutality:
The evidence indicated that the victim was frail and weak from having suffered a
series of strokes. The victim sustained at least eight areas of blunt-force trauma to
the head that were caused by multiple blows. In addition, the victim’s nose had
been struck and had flattened against his face. The medical examiner also testified
that the victim’s injuries were consistent with someone either having smashed the
victim’s head against the floor or having struck the back of the victim’s head as he
lay face down on the floor. The victim had multiple areas of bleeding underneath
his scalp and on the surface of his brain. The swelling and bruises to defendant’s
hands and elbows indicated that defendant did not simply strike the victim with his
fists. By defendant’s own admission, he repeatedly struck the victim as he lay face
down on the floor either stunned or unconscious. [Id. at 391.]

-- 5 of 5 --