PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT FORSTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 5, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 221488
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 95-052979-FH
ROBERT FORSTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Smolenski and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from a forty-to-sixty-month sentence for aggravated
stalking, MCL 750.411i; MSA 28.643(9), following an adjudication that he violated the terms of
his probation. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that his sentence was disproportionate. This Court’s
review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion by violating the
principle of proportionality. An abuse of discretion will be found “where the sentence imposed
does not reasonably reflect the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the
offender.” People v St John, 230 Mich App 644, 649; 585 NW2d 849 (1998); People v Castillo,
230 Mich App 442, 447; 584 NW2d 606 (1998).
A sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the
offense and the offender. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).
“Sentencing requires consideration of a number of factors: (1) severity of the crime; (2) the
nature of the crime; (3) circumstances surrounding the criminal behavior; (4) defendant’s attitude
toward his criminal behavior; (5) defendant’s criminal history; (6) defendant’s social and
personal history; and (7) statutory sentencing limits.” People v Ross, 145 Mich App 483, 495;
378 NW2d 517 (1985). Those factors “should be balanced with the following objectives: (1)
reformation of the offender, (2) protection of society, (3) punishment of the offender, and (4)
deterrence of others from committing like offenses.” People v Rice (On Remand), 235 Mich App
429, 446; 597 NW2d 843 (1999) (citations omitted.)
We find no basis for reviewing defendant’s sentence for violation of probation in light of
that applicable to the underlying offense under the statutory guidelines. See People v Reynolds,
-1-
240 Mich App 250, 253-254; 611 NW2d 316 (2000). In light of all the facts and circumstances,
including defendant’s prior history which included incarceration for stalking following violation
of probation, defendant’s poor performance on bond, delayed sentence, probation, and that
defendant was apparently intending to contact the victim when he was arrested for violation of
probation, we find that the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
