People v. Schaafsma, Docket No. 252696.

Decision Date28 June 2005
Docket NumberDocket No. 252696.
Citation704 N.W.2d 115,267 Mich. App. 184
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Wayne SCHAAFSMA, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, William A. Forsyth, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy K. McMorrow, Chief Appellate Attorney, and Janice Kittel Mann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Gerald Ferry, Detroit, for the defendant.

Before: O'CONNELL, P.J., and SCHUETTE and BORRELLO, JJ.

O'CONNELL, P.J.

Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted his sentence of two to fourteen years in prison imposed following his conviction of a probation violation. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).

Defendant pleaded guilty of uttering and publishing, M.C.L. § 750.249. The statutory sentencing guidelines established a minimum term range of nine to twenty-three months. Because this range permitted an intermediate sanction, the trial court's sentence of one year of probation was within the guidelines. M.C.L. § 769.34(4)(c); M.C.L. § 769.31(b). Shortly thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to violating his probation. The trial court concluded that it was not required to adhere to the guidelines when imposing sentence following a conviction of probation violation and sentenced defendant to two to fourteen years in prison, exceeding the minimum range of the guidelines by one month.

Contrary to the sentencing court's conclusion, our Supreme Court has recently held that the statutory sentencing guidelines apply to a sentence imposed after a probation violation. People v. Hendrick, 472 Mich. 555, 565, 697 N.W.2d 511 (2005). However, the Court in Hendrick also recognized that conduct underlying a probation violation may serve as a substantial and compelling basis for departure. Id. Putting conduct aside, any probation violation represents an affront to the court and an indication of an offender's callous attitude toward correction and toward the trust the court has granted the probationer. The violation itself is objective and verifiable, so we see no reason why a court must focus exclusively on the underlying conduct, especially since the conduct itself may be punished in a separate proceeding. We conclude that the offender's probation violation itself is an objective and verifiable factor worthy of independent consideration. Because the probation violation is objective and verifiable, the trial court in its discretion may conclude that the factor provides a substantial and compelling reason to depart from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Lockridge
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 13, 2014
    ...See, e.g., People v. Corrin, 489 Mich. 855, 795 N.W.2d 13 (2011); Horn, 279 Mich.App. at 48, 755 N.W.2d 212; People v. Schaafsma, 267 Mich.App. 184, 185–186, 704 N.W.2d 115 (2005). The trial court's reasons for the departure are objective and verifiable. Further, considering the exceptional......
  • People v. Cline
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 18, 2007
    ...range if the court concludes `that the characteristic has been given inadequate or disproportionate weight.'" People v. Schaafsma, 267 Mich.App. 184, 186, 704 N.W.2d 115 (2005), quoting MCL 769.34(3)(b). Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in c......
  • People v. Hershey
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 5, 2013
    ...and verifiable fact worthy of independent consideration when a trial court is considering an upward departure, People v. Schaafsma, 267 Mich.App. 184, 186, 704 N.W.2d 115 (2005), which implies that it is not adequately or otherwise accounted for in the sentencing ...
  • Mason v. Simmons
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 28, 2005
    ... ... William SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant ... Docket No. 257692 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan ... Submitted June 8, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT