People v. Malinowski
301 Mich. App. 182
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant pled guilty in April 2010 to assault with intent to rob while armed and was sentenced in May 2010 to 1 year in jail and 3 years’ probation.
- Probation prohibited alcohol use; sentence reflected a plea agreement and a downward deviation from guidelines acknowledged by the prosecutor.
- On June 14, 2012, defendant admitted alcohol use and pled guilty to a probation violation; trial court continued probation with additional terms including 30 days’ jail, an alcohol tether for six months, and treatment.
- Amended probation order adding conditions was issued on June 22, 2012.
- Prosecution argued the court should have resentenced within the guidelines and failed to articulate substantial and compelling reasons for departure; defense argued continuation was permissible under MCR 6.445(G) and no resentencing was required.
- The court affirmed, holding that probation continuation with modifications is allowed and Hendrick does not govern continuations, only revocations followed by resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation continuation after a violation requires resentencing within guidelines. | Prosecution: resentencing within guidelines is required. | Defendant: probation was not revoked; continuation allowed. | No resentencing required; continuation permitted. |
| Whether Hendrick controls the outcome of probation continuations. | Prosecution: Hendrick applies to all probation sanctions. | Probation continued/modified is distinguished from revocation in Hendrick. | Hendrick not controlling for continuations under MCR 6.445(G). |
| Whether the original departure from guidelines was properly supported. | Prosecution argues lack of substantial and compelling reasons. | Wiley permits departure when part of a valid plea agreement; no additional articulation needed. | Original sentence complied with guidelines; continued probation valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Wiley, 472 Mich 153 (2005) (requirements of MCL 769.34(3) satisfied when record shows valid plea agreement)
- People v Hendrick, 472 Mich 555 (2005) (probation sanctions generally subject to guidelines when revocation and new sentence occur)
- People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 (2011) (disjunctive 'or' differentiates revocation from continuation/modification)
- People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 (2008) (standard for departure and substantial/compelling reasons)
- People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003) (when sentence not within guidelines, must have substantial/compelling reason for departure)
- People v Morson, 471 Mich 248 (2004) (legal standards for appellate review of trial court decisions on sentencing)
- People v Zujko, 282 Mich App 520 (2009) (standard of review for probation-terminating decisions and related orders)
- People v Underwood, 278 Mich App 334 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard for probation-related decisions)
- People v Blackston, 481 Mich 451 (2008) (abuse of discretion in sentencing within/downward departures)