PEOPLE OF MI V RONALD ALLAN SHIMEL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 19, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 197426
Bay Circuit Court
LC No. 86-001055 FH
87-001406 FH
87-001408 FH
RONALD ALLAN SHIMEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Markman and Whitbeck, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In lower court Docket No. 86-001055 FH, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted larceny from
a building, MCL 750.360; MSA 28.592, MCL 750.92; MSA 28.287, and third offender status, MCL
769.11; MSA 28.1083. In lower court Docket No. 87-001406 FH, defendant pleaded guilty to
delivery of LSD, MCL 333.7401(1) and (2)(b); MSA 14.15(7401)(1) and (2)(b), and third offender
status. In lower court Docket No. 87-001408 FH, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of less than
fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(1) and (2)(iv); MSA 14.15(7403)(1) and (2)(a)(iv), and third
offender status. Defendant was sentenced in all three cases to five years’ probation, with the first year
to be served in the county jail. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to violating his terms of
probation. Defendant received enhanced sentences of thirty-two to forty-eight months’ imprisonment
for the attempt conviction, 96 to 168 months’ imprisonment for the delivery conviction and sixty to
ninety months’ imprisonment for the possession conviction. Each sentence reflected enhancement based
on defendant’s status as a repeat offender. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant argues that his probation revocation must be set aside and his probationary sentence
reinstated because the six-year delay from the issuance of the arrest warrant on the probation violation
charges until his arrest was the product of the failure of law enforcement officials to exercise due
diligence in the execution of the warrant. We are unable to review the merits of this claim in light of
defendant’s failure to move to quash the warrant in the trial court and the concomitant failure of
defendant to create an evidentiary record or secure a ruling from the trial court. See, e.g., People v
Carroll, 396 Mich 408, 412; 240 NW2d 722 (1976).
-1
Moreover, this Court may not consider the document appended to defendant’s appellate brief,
because the appending of this document constitutes an improper expansion of the record. People v
Taylor, 383 Mich 338, 362; 175 NW2d 715 (1970); Long v Chelsea Community Hosp, 219 Mich
App 578, 588; 557 NW2d 157 (1996); Harkins v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 206 Mich App 317,
323; 520 NW2d 653 (1994).
Defendant is not entitled to resentencing. The failure to consider one of the factors identified in
People v Snow, 386 Mich 586; 194 NW2d 314 (1972), does not destroy the propriety of the
sentencing judge’s rationale. People v Girardin, 165 Mich App 264, 268; 418 NW2d 453 (1987).
Moreover, while the trial court did not expressly state that it was considering defendant’s rehabilitative
potential when fashioning defendant’s sentences, the trial court’s rationale implicitly indicates that the
trial court considered this potential and found it lacking.
Similarly, the failure to consider the sentencing guidelines does not destroy the propriety of
defendant’s sentences. Because defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender, the trial court was
precluded from considering the guidelines and, in fact, would have erred had it done so. People v
Gatewood, 450 Mich 1025; 546 NW2d 252 (1996); People v Edgett, 220 Mich App 686, 692
694; 560 NW2d 360 (1996).
Finally, the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion. Defendant’s sentences are
proportionate to the offense and the offender and reflect the seriousness of the matter. People v
Hansford (After Remand), 454 Mich 320, 325-326; 562 NW2d 460 (1997); Edgett, supra at 695
696.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
-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.