People of Michigan v. Michael James Dykema, 332905

Michael J. Dykema pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob and received 5 years' probation in March 2012.
While on probation, the prosecution alleged two violations: (1) changing residence without written permission; and (2) making assaultive/threatening statements on Facebook.
At a probation-revocation hearing the court heard testimony (including from a probation officer) and reviewed the Facebook comments.
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Dykema violated both probation conditions and revoked probation.
The court sentenced Dykema to 38 to 240 months' imprisonment on the underlying conviction (minimum 38 months).
Dykema appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of violations and that the 38-month minimum was disproportionate; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficient evidence supported finding Dykema changed residence without written permission	Prosecution: record shows Dykema changed residence and no written permission exists	Dykema: he had non-written permission to move	Held: Sufficient evidence; written permission was required and credibility disputes were for factfinder
Whether Facebook comments violated prohibition on assaultive/ threatening behavior	Prosecution: comments included threats (beating to death, murder, "target marked") and caused others to cut contact	Dykema: comments were expressions of frustration/stress, not true threats	Held: Sufficient evidence; several comments were properly viewed as threatening or intimidating
Whether the 38-month minimum sentence was disproportionate to the violations/underlying offense	Prosecution: sentence within guidelines and permissible after probation revocation	Dykema: 38 months is excessive relative to probation violations	Held: No abuse of discretion; 38 months within guideline range and presumed reasonable
Standard of proof and deference on probation-revocation factual findings	Prosecution: preponderance standard applies; appellate courts defer to trial court credibility findings	Dykema: challenged weight/credibility of evidence	Held: Preponderance standard applied; appellate court defers to trial court on credibility and weight

People v Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
People v Reynolds, 195 Mich. App. 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (apply preponderance standard for probation violations)
People v Breeding, 284 Mich. App. 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (prosecution bears burden by preponderance; appellate deference to factfinder)
People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for proportionality review)
People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (Mich. 1990) (principles of proportionality in sentencing)
People v Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (presumption of reasonableness for guideline-range sentences)
United States v Hughes, 964 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1992) (probation conditions may limit speech rights in certain contexts)