PEOPLE OF MI V LYTARIAN LADON WEAVER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 20, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 234252
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 93-035421-FH
LYTARIAN LADON WEAVER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted his consecutive sentences of four and onehalf to twenty years and two to twenty years in prison imposed on his plea-based conviction of
probation violation. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
In 1993 defendant pleaded guilty of delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL
333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and conspiracy to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 750.157a,
and was sentenced to lifetime probation. In 1997 and 1998 defendant pleaded guilty of violating
his probation by using marijuana. On both occasions he was continued on lifetime probation. In
2000 defendant pleaded guilty of violating his probation by using marijuana and failing to attend
a court-ordered treatment program. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive prison
terms of four and one-half to twenty years for the conviction of delivery of less than fifty grams
of cocaine, and two to twenty years for the conviction of conspiracy to deliver less than fifty
grams of cocaine. Defendant received credit for 381 days served in jail.
Defendant argues that when considered together, his minimum terms are disproportionate
to his circumstances and to those of the offense. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461
NW2d 1 (1990). We disagree and affirm defendant’s sentences. In determining proportionality,
this Court is not required to consider the cumulative length of consecutive sentences. Rather, the
proper inquiry is whether each sentence is proportionate. People v Miles, 454 Mich 90, 95; 559
NW2d 299 (1997). The judicial sentencing guidelines do not apply to probation violators and
are not to be considered when fashioning a sentence for probation violation. People v Williams,
223 Mich App 409, 412-413; 566 NW2d 649 (1997).
Defendant’s assertion that the statutory sentencing guidelines should be considered to
determine the proportionality of his sentences is without merit. The statutory sentencing
-1-
guidelines apply only to offenses committed on or after January 1, 1999. MCL 769.34(1). The
legislature did not intend that the statutory guidelines be applied retroactively to offenses
committed before January 1, 1999. People v Reynolds, 240 Mich App 250, 253-254; 611 NW2d
316 (2000). The key test of the proportionality of a sentence is whether it reflects the seriousness
of the matter. People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 320; 532 NW2d 508 (1995).
Defendant violated his probation on two previous occasions but was not given more
severe punishment, and in addition committed two misdemeanor offenses while on probation.
Defendant’s behavior indicated an unwillingness to conform his actions to the requirements of
the law. His minimum terms of imprisonment do not constitute an abuse of discretion under the
circumstances.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
