IN RE MARTEZ E SMITH MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In re MARTEZ E. SMITH, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 16, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 213967
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-313711
MARTEZ E. SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the decision committing him to the custody of the Family
Independence Agency (FIA) following his conviction of probation violation. We affirm.
Respondent (DOB 4/24/82) was charged with unlawful driving away of an automobile
(UDAA), MCL 750.413; MSA 28.645, receiving or concealing stolen property over $100, MCL
750.535; MSA 28.803, malicious destruction of property, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1), operating
a motor vehicle without an operator’s license, MCL 257.311; MSA 9.2011, and violating probation by
being truant from school. At the June 4, 1998 delinquency adjudication hearing, the court dismissed the
charges of UDAA, receiving or concealing stolen property, and malicious destruction of property.
Respondent then pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle without a valid operator’s license, and to
violating his probation by being truant fom school. The parties agreed to proceed to disposition
r
immediately. The court committed respondent to the custody of the FIA. The court stated that it based
its decision on respondent’s failure to improve his conduct while on probation.
Respondent argues that the court abused its discretion by committing him to the FIA. We
disagree. The right to review of sentencing decisions applies to juvenile court proceedings. In re
Chapel, 134 Mich App 308, 314; 350 NW2d 871 (1984). Sentencing decisions in juvenile court are
-1
reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. MCL 712A.18; MSA 27.3178(598.18); People v
Thenghkam, 240 Mich App 29, 42; ___ NW2d ___ (2000).
Upon a finding that a juvenile has violated terms of probation, the court may make a
supplemental disposition, including revoking probation and committing the juvenile to the FIA. MCR
5.944(A)(6). Respondent was placed on probation for the offenses of fleeing and eluding a police
officer, MCL 750.479a; MSA 28.747(1), and receiving or concealing stolen property. One condition
of that probation was that he attend school on a regular basis. By his own admission, respondent
violated his probation by being repeatedly absent from school. The evidence showed that he missed
over one hundred periods in a span of two months. Moreover, respondent continued to have negative
contact with the juvenile justice system while on probation. The court’s reasons for committing
respondent to the FIA were his failure to improve his conduct while on probation, notwithstanding the
furnishing of services to help him do so, and his failure to accept responsibility for the consequences of
his actions. We conclude that the court’s decision to commit respondent to the FIA did not constitute
an abuse of discretion. Thenghkam, supra at 42.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
