PEOPLE OF MI V JOHN WESLEY GARRETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 22, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 222981
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-164921-FC
JOHN WESLEY GARRETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, who was charged with second-degree murder, was convicted by a jury of the
lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter, MCL 750.321; MSA 28.553, and possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.414(2). He was sentenced
to a term of eight to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter conviction, and to a
consecutive two-year term for the felony-firearm conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We
affirm, but remand for correction of defendant’s judgment of sentence.
Defendant argues that his manslaughter conviction is constitutionally invalid because the
decedent would have survived if his friends had gotten him prompt medical attention. There is
no merit to defendant’s argument that the alleged negligence of decedent’s friends constitutes an
intervening cause that exonerates defendant from criminal responsibility. See People v Tims, 449
Mich 83, 100-101; 534 NW2d 675 (1995); People v Webb, 163 Mich App 462, 465; 415 NW2d
9 (1987). It is enough that defendant’s gunshot was “a” proximate cause of decedent’s death.
Even “joint equal causes” would not excuse defendant’s culpable behavior. Tims, supra.
Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by denying his
motion for a directed verdict on the issue of self-defense. There was conflicting evidence on this
issue. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to allow
the jury to conclude that “defendant’s belief of imminent danger either was not honest or was
unreasonable.” People v Fortson, 202 Mich App 13, 20; 507 NW2d 763 (1993).
Defendant also argues that his manslaughter sentence, which is within the recommended
minimum sentence range of the applicable judicial sentencing guidelines, is disproportionate.
We disagree. Defendant’s sentence is reviewed under the principle of proportionality to
determine whether it is proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the
-1-
offense and the offender. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). A sentence
within the guidelines range is presumptively valid, People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354-355;
408 NW2d 789 (1987), and defendant here presents no unusual circumstances to overcome the
presumptive validity of his sentence. Milbourn, supra. We find no abuse of discretion.
Finally, although not raised by either party, we note that defendant’s judgment of
sentence incorrectly indicates that defendant was convicted of second-degree murder.
Accordingly, we remand for the clerical correction of defendant’s judgment of sentence to reflect
that he was convicted by a jury of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.
Affirmed and remanded for the clerical correction of defendant’s judgment of sentence.
Jurisdiction is not retained.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/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.
