PEOPLE OF MI V ARNOLD PLAMONDON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 189990
Leelanau Circuit Court
LC No. 94-765 FH
ARNOLD PLAMONDON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Corrigan, C.J., and Young and M.J. Talbot*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right his conviction for resisting and obstructing a peace officer in the
performance of his duties, MCL 750.479; MSA 28.747.
Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation. In the course of routinely processing the matter,
the police officer involved ascertained that there was an outstanding warrant against defendant for
violation of probation. Defendant was informed he would have to accompany the officer to the county
jail.
Defendant remonstrated with the officer, asserting that the warrant was invalid and that he had
not violated his probation. The officer explained that he had no means of verifying the validity of the
warrant, but since it existed he intended to arrest defendant. Defendant refused to acquiesce and
submitted to arrest only after twice being sprayed with pepper gas. Defendant first contends that he
was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney failed to challenge the
validity of the arrest; if the arrest was illegal, defendant cannot be guilty of resisting an officer lawfully
engaged in the performance of his duties. People v Landrie, 124 Mich App 480; 335 NW2d 11
(1983).
Issuance of a warrant for probation violation is not tantamount to a finding that defendant
violated probation, but merely the means of initiating the process for making that determination.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Therefore, that defendant may not have actually violated his probation does not invalidate the arrest
warrant. In any event, the warrant was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and even if its
issuance was irregular, it was not absolutely void, and it constituted a justification to the police officer
relying on it to effectuate an arrest pursuant to its command. Dallas v Garras, 306 Mich 313; 10
NW2d 897 (1943). Accordingly, the validity of the warrant was not a defense to a charge of resisting
and obstructing a police officer, and defendant’s trial counsel cannot have been ineffective for failing to
rely on such an invalid defense. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).
In articulating its reasons for the sentence imposed, the trial court reflected that defendant had
previously indicated by his conduct that probation would not be a viable sentencing alternative. Any
speculation about the trial court’s response to a future probation violation was in no way determinative,
and on this record there is no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing discretion. People v Houston, 448
Mich 312; 532 NW2d 508 (1995). Moreover, any sentencing issue is moot because defendant has
now served his entire determinate sentence. People v Briseno, 211 Mich App 11, 17; 535 NW2d
559 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Maura D. Corrigan
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.