Defendant pled guilty to delivery of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv), and to being a subsequent controlled-substance offender, MCL 333.7413; MSA 14.15(7413), following which he was sentenced to a term of from eight to forty years imprisonment. He appeals as of right. The prosecutor has filed a motion to affirm, which was denied. We affirm defendant’s convictions.
i
Defendant first argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on entrapment grounds was clearly erroneous, because defendant’s friend induced him into the drug transaction. We disagree.
Under Michigan law, entrapment is determined by an objective test. People v Turner, 390 Mich 7, 22; 210 NW2d 336 (1973). The objective test focuses not on whether the defendant is predisposed to commit the crime, but on whether the actions of the police are so reprehensible that the court should refuse, as a matter of public policy, to allow a conviction to stand. People v Juarez, 158 Mich *145App 66, 74; 404 NW2d 222 (1987). This defense is not, however, available any time the police do something which can be characterized as "reprehensible.” People v Crawford, 143 Mich App 348, 352-353; 372 NW2d 550 (1985).
A claim of entrapment is to be determined by the trial court and is subject to appellate review under the "clearly erroneous” standard. People v D’Angelo, 401 Mich 167, 183; 257 NW2d 655 (1977). The defendant bears the burden of proving his claim of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
In this case, the trial court failed to find entrapment. It found that the purchaser of the cocaine, an undercover officer, made a simple request for it to which defendant acquiesced with alacrity.
Our review of the record indicates that defendant’s friend, who made the initial request, was not aware that the purchaser was a police officer, nor was she an informant. The officer requested to purchase cocaine, and defendant made a sale. The trial court’s determination that the police conduct was not so reprehensible that the conviction cannot stand was not clearly erroneous.
n
Defendant next argues that the trial court acted unfairly toward him because he committed the offense of delivery of cocaine at the wrong time, just after a popular sports figure had overdosed on the drug. He asserts that the trial court used inflammatory words at sentencing that revealed a personal prejudice against this drug and that therefore he must be resentenced. After reviewing the entire record, we find no error that requires resentencing in this matter. The trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion. It considered per*146missible factors before imposing an eight to forty year term of imprisonment, which does not shock our conscience. See People v Coles, 417 Mich 523; 339 NW2d 440 (1983); People v Snow, 386 Mich 586; 194 NW2d 314 (1972).
Affirmed.
Cynar, J., concurred.