PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTOPHER CHAPERON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 4, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 197667
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 94-011536
CHRISTOPHER CHAPERON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Gribbs, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right from his adjudication of six counts of probation violation and
resulting sentence of two to five years in prison, based on an underlying plea of nolo contendere to
aggravated stalking.
An express conditions of defendant’s probation was that he have no contact with the victim, his
then estranged and now former wife. At the original probation hearing, the court directly addressed
defendant, advising him that the condition prohibiting contact with the victim was meant to be taken
literally, and defendant expressed his understanding. Despite such admonition, defendant was then
charged with having seven contacts with the victim; one such contact was, however, with the prior
approval of defendant’s probation officer, and in that respect defendant was acquitted of the probation
violation charge. The other contacts were all admitted by defendant, who claimed, however, that each
was innocuous, and that some were indirect. The trial court, however, which might well have viewed
several of these contacts at least as having a more sinister connotation given the prior relationship
between defendant and the victim, nonetheless concluded that defendant had contacted the victim in
violation of the express condition of his probation.
Defendant first contends that the probationary condition prohibiting any contact with the victim
was unconstitutionally vague, in violation of his due process rights. Given the nature of the offense,
notwithstanding defendant’s parental obligations, the prohibition of all contact with the victim during the
term of probation was valid and enforceable. People v Loretta Miller, 182 Mich App 711, 713-714;
452 NW2d 890 (1990). Where as here the trial court discussed the condition with defendant at the
-1
time the probationary sentence was imposed, explained unmistakably the trial court’s intent in imposing
the condition, and defendant indicated his understanding on the record, we conclude that for present
purposes the condition was not unconstitutionally vague. People v Bruce, 102 Mich App 573, 579
580; 302 NW2d 238 (1980).
Contrary to defendant’s argument, there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact
in finding defendant guilty of the six charged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial
judge, sitting as trier of fact, was not required to accept defendant’s testimony in whole or in part, and
having found that testimony lacking in credibility its findings were based on sufficient evidence. People
v Jackson, 390 Mich 621, 625 n 2; 212 NW2d 918 (1973).
During the probation violation hearing, it was brought to the trial court’s attention, and defendant
admitted, two uncharged violations consisting of conduct in breach of the criminal law. The trial court,
in making its findings of fact, stated that it was not considering these uncharged violations, and its
pertinent findings verify this assertion. There is, accordingly, no record support for defendant’s
contention that his due process rights were violated because his probation was revoked on the basis of
uncharged violations. See People v Hunter, 106 Mich App 821, 824-827; 308 NW2d 694 (1981).
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-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.