PEOPLE OF MI V JACKIE BERDETTE THOMAS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 27, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 219140
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 95-010541-FH
JACKIE BERDETTE THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In 1995, defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of larceny by false pretenses in excess of
$100, MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415, and was sentenced to three years’ probation on each count.
Following a bench trial, she was convicted of four counts of probation violation. The trial court
sentenced her to thirty to 120 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with the other
four convictions. Defendant appeals by right, contending that her sentence was disproportionate.
We disagree and affirm.
This Court reviews sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. People v Milbourn,
435 Mich 630, 635-636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990); People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 483; 540
NW2d 718 (1995). Criminal sentences must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and
must take into account the circumstances of both the offense and the offender. Milbourn, supra
at 636. A sentencing court, after revoking a probation order, may sentence the offender in the
same manner and to the same penalty as it might have done if the probation order had never been
made. People v Sandlin, 179 Mich App 540, 543; 446 NW2d 301 (1989). The sentencing
guidelines do not apply to sentencing for probation violations, only to the crimes covered by the
earlier underlying felony. People v Edgett, 220 Mich App 686, 690-691; 560 NW2d 360 (1996);
see, also, People v Williams, 223 Mich App 409, 411; 566 NW2d 649 (1997). Thus, “when
dealing with probation violators . . . , this Court may not use the guidelines in any manner in
determining whether the defendant’s sentence is proportionate.” Williams, supra at 413.
At the time of defendant’s underlying convictions, larceny by false pretenses in excess of
$100 was punishable by not more than ten years. Pursuant to the two-thirds rule of People v
Tanner, 387 Mich 683; 199 NW2d 202 (1972), defendant could have received a sentence of
6-2/3 to 10 years. The 2½-year minimum sentence imposed in this case was substantially less
than the statutory maximum that could have been imposed. Further, the record indicates that
-1
since being placed on probation in 1995, defendant violated her probation conditions several
times, but was still not sentenced to imprisonment until her fourth violation in January 1999.
The trial court gave defendant ample opportunities to comply with her probation conditions and
avoid imprisonment. The 2½-year prison sentence given by the trial court was proportionate to
the circumstances of the offense and offender; consequently, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing defendant.
We affirm.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
