PEOPLE OF MI V MORTON ARTHUR SHIMEL

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED July 30, 1999 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 213901 Mason Circuit Court LC No. 93-011258 FH 95-012245 FH MORTON ARTHUR SHIMEL, Defendant-Appellant. Before: White, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In lower court docket no. 93-011258 FH, defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle, MCL 750.413; MSA 28.645, and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(d). Defendant was sentenced to three years’ probation with the first year to be served in the county jail. In lower court docket no. 95-012245 FH, defendant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a building with intent to commit malicious destruction of property over $100 or obstruction of justice, MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305, and was sentenced to five years’ probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. At the guilty plea hearing in docket no. 95-012245 FH, defendant also pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation in docket no. 93-011258 FH. Defendant was sentenced on the probation violation to an additional ninety days in jail and his probation was extended to five years. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation in both lower court cases, and the trial court sentenced him to three to five years’ imprisonment on the UDAA conviction and to three to ten years’ imprisonment on the B&E conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant’s sentences do not violate the principle of proportionality, especially in light of his conduct while on probation and the benefits bestowed upon him by the various plea agreements employed to secure his pleas. People v Ward, 206 Mich App 38, 45; 520 NW2d 363 (1994); People v Reynolds, 195 Mich App 182, 184-185; 489 NW2d 128 (1992). -1­ Affirmed. /s/ Helene N. White /s/ Jane E. Markey /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder -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.