PEOPLE OF MI V ROGER RAYDELL DEANES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 19, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 206293
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 97-400119 FH
ROGER RAYDELL DEANES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Saad and Collins, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged with second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549, and
possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). He was
convicted by a jury of the felony-firearm charge, and voluntary manslaughter, MCL 750.321; MSA
28.553, a lesser included offense of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to five
to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, to be served consecutive to the
mandatory two-year sentence for the felony-firearm conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We
affirm.
The only issue raised by defendant on appeal is whether his sentence of five to fifteen years for
the voluntary manslaughter conviction violates the rule of proportionality. We review the proportionality
of defendant’s sentence for an abuse of discretion by the trial court. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich
630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990); People v Paquette, 214 Mich App 336, 344-345; 543 NW2d 342
(1995).
The sentencing guideline range in this case was determined to be one to five years. Because
defendant’s minimum sentence falls within the guideline range, the sentence is presumptively valid.
People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354-355; 408 NW2d 789 (1987); People v Kennebrew, 220 Mich
App 601, 609; 560 NW2d 354 (1996). Although a sentence that falls within the guideline range can, in
unusual circumstances, violate the rule of proportionality, Milbourn, supra at 661, failure to raise such
circumstances in open court for consideration by the judge before sentencing waives the issue for
appeal. People v Sharp, 192 Mich App 501, 505-506; 481 NW2d 773 (1992). Aside from a
statement reiterating defendant’s position that the shooting was in self-defense and indicating remorse
-1
for the victim’s death, defendant presented nothing to the trial court before sentencing. Moreover, our
review of the record in this case reveals no unusual circumstances that would overcome the presumption
of proportionality. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
-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.
