PEOPLE OF MI V MEVELYN JEANETTE PEABODY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 13, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 195632
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 93-129104 FH
MEVELYN JEANETTE PEABODY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Murphy and Reilly
MEMORANDUM.
On this appeal of right from defendant’s guilty plea to probation violation and enhanced
sentence, as a fourth offender on the underlying offense of retail fraud in the first degree, MCL
750.356c; MSA 28.588(3), defendant contends that the trial court erred in relying on inaccurate
information contained in the presentence report in imposing sentence and in later denying her motion for
resentencing and for correction of the presentence report.
The claimed inaccuracies concern assertions in the presentence report that, while defendant was
on delayed sentencing status in 1995, a hypodermic needle wrapped in a bloody stained tissue was
found in her locker when she left a drug treatment program, and that defendant has failed to successfully
complete prior drug treatment programs when made available to her. Defendant argues that the
inaccuracies appear in a report requesting issuance of a bench warrant for probation violation dated
August 30, 1995, and in an updated presentence report dated September 23, 1996. However, these
inaccuracies merely recapitulate information found in a presentence report dated March 16, 1995,
which formed the basis for defendant’s sentencing to two years’ probation on March 23, 1995, after
delayed sentencing status was revoked. No transcript of the March 23, 1995, sentencing proceedings
has been furnished to this Court, which must therefore assume that at that sentencing defendant was
accorded the opportunity to correct the presentence report of March 16, 1995, and that there were no
such corrections. MCR 6.425(D)(2)(b). Accordingly, the trial court’s conclusion that there are no
inaccuracies in the later presentence reports is not clearly erroneous.
-1
Furthermore, the trial court stated for the record that it was not considering any such contested
facts in sentencing defendant for probation violation. Given defendant’s prior criminal record of 11
felonies and 7 misdemeanors, the 1 to 15 year sentence for this fourth offender in no way suggests that
such ancillary matters adversely affected the sentencing decision. Furthermore, any such claimed
inaccuracies fail to rise to the level of representing an “extensively and materially false” foundation for
the sentence imposed, and therefore resentencing on this basis is precluded. People v Mitchell, 454
Mich 145, 173; ___ NW2d ___ (1997), quoting Townsend v Burke, 334 US 736; 68 S Ct 1252; 92
L Ed 1690 (1948).
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
-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.