PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTINA MARIE HAYNES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 10, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 200979
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 94-006040 FH
CHRISTINA MARIE HAYNES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Murphy and Reilly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right her adjudication of probation violation based on a contested hearing,
which was combined with her guilty plea to probation violation charges arising from conviction of three
misdemeanors, assault on a police officer, resisting and obstructing a police officer, and possession of
marijuana, culminating in a 5 to 14 year sentence on the underlying offense of forgery, MCL 750.249;
MSA 28.446.
Defendant first contends that the delay between issuance of the probation violation warrant for
use of marijuana, the warrant being issued on January 3, 1996, and effectuation of the warrant by her
arrest some eight months later, effectuated a waiver of the right of the State to prosecute this probation
violation charge. People v Ortman, 209 Mich App 251, 254; 530 NW2d 161 (1995), and cases
there cited. This issue is unpreserved, the record reflects that, although at the probation violation
hearing defendant’s attorney touched on the issue, the record is deliberately undeveloped in this regard.
Only defendant, and not the probation officer, was asked what efforts were made to effectuate the
probation violation warrant. The trial judge found that defendant’s testimony was generally not credible,
so there is no reliable indication as to the extent of the efforts made. However, the record is clear that
at least one such effort was made, but defendant was not home when the attempt was made to arrest
her, and in the meantime defendant not only failed to report eight times between January and
September, 1996, to her probation officer, but she specifically violated his instructions to report to deal
with the urinalysis revealing marijuana use, which thereupon rendered her a fugitive. Moreover, the
delay in this case is much shorter than that in such cases as Ortman, supra, where the delay was nearly
two years and no efforts were made to effectuate the arrest warrant. Defendant has failed to
-1
demonstrate a lack of due diligence sufficient to vitiate the State’s right to pursue this aspect of the
probation violation charges. It might be noted that, in any event, defendant’s probation would be
subject to revocation for the three misdemeanor convictions.
Defendant contends that her sentence was not individualized and that the trial judge imposed a
disproportionate sentence. Her argument is founded upon the notion that the sentence guideline range
for the underlying offense, as calculated at the time she was placed on probation, has some relevance to
an evaluation of the sentence imposed following revocation of her probationary status. That assumption
is entirely incorrect; the use of the guidelines for any purpose whatsoever in conjunction with a sentence
following probation violation is improper. People v Williams, 223 Mich App 409; ___ NW2d ___
(1997).
In evaluating the proportionality of defendant’s sentence, it should be noted that her conviction
of one count of forgery was the product of a plea bargain, whereby five additional counts of forgery and
six of uttering and publishing were dismissed. Despite being accorded the privilege of probation in lieu
of initial incarceration, defendant egregiously violated the terms of her probation and ignored the
authority of the court and its probation agent repeatedly within the first two years of her five year
probation. The presentence report also reflects that the underlying offenses were not defendant’s first;
the victims were her parents, and she had stolen checks from them previously and signed her name to
them without authority, although they had not opted to prosecute these earlier violations. On this
record, a 5 to 14 year sentence is not disproportionate to the offense or the offender. People v
Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).
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.
