IN THE MATTER OF LENNARD LASTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In re LENNARD LASTER.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 206457
Wayne Probate Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 95-325508
LENNARD LASTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markman, P.J., and Saad and Houk,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from the decision committing him to the custody of the Family
Independence Agency (FIA) following his plea-based conviction of probation violation. We affirm.
Defendant (DOB 12-16-80) was placed on probation for breaking and entering with intent to
commit larceny, MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305. Subsequently, he was charged with probation violation
for incorrigibility and truancy, MCL 712A.2(a)(3); MSA 27.3178(598.2)(a)(3). At a hearing before a
referee, defendant agreed to plead guilty to the charge of incorrigibility in return for dismissal of the
charge of truancy. In pleading guilty, defendant admitted that he repeatedly disregarded the curfew set
by his mother, that he left home without permission and without informing his mother of his destination,
and that he refused his mother’s instructions to do chores around the house. Defendant acknowledged
that he knew that his actions constituted a violation of his probation. The court found that defendant had
violated his probation, and committed him to the custody of the FIA.
In juvenile proceedings, a violation of probation must be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence. In re Belcher, 143 Mich App 68, 74; 371 NW2d 474 (1985).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Defendant argues that the factual basis presented at the hearing was insufficient to support a
finding that he was guilty of violating his probation. We disagree and affirm. Support for a plea offered
by a juvenile can be established by questioning the juvenile or “by other means” when the plea is one of
admission. MCR 5.941(3)(a). The charge of incorrigibility encompasses repeated disobedience to the
reasonable and lawful commands of the juvenile’s parents. MCL 712A.2(a)(3). Defendant’s own
testimony established that he repeatedly disregarded the curfew set by his mother, that he disregarded
his mother’s instructions to inform her of his destination when he left the house, and that he refused his
mother’s instructions to perform chores around the house. Defendant does not contend that his
mother’s requirements that he adhere to a curfew and inform her of his whereabouts were unreasonable.
The concept of disobeying a parent’s command includes the refusal to do chores around the house.
MCL 712A.2(a)(3) should be construed in a way that avoids an absurd or unreasonable result. In re
Weiss, 224 Mich App 37, 41; 568 NW2d 336 (1997). Defendant’s plea was supported by the
requisite evidence. Belcher, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. Houk
-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.
