PEOPLE OF MI V AFRAI HARRIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 221677
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-008261
AFRAI HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Doctoroff and T.L. Ludington*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted a five to twenty-year sentence imposed after he
pleaded guilty to violating lifetime probation for possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of
cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant asserts on appeal that his sentence was disproportionate where he had a minimal
prior record, the charge involved less than a gram of cocaine, and he committed no new offenses while
on probation. He violated his probation by failing to report, and failing to inform his agent about his
change of address.
This Court reviews a sentence for abuse of discretion. A sentence constitutes an abuse of
discretion if it is disproportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the
offender. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Sentencing guidelines do
not apply to probation violations. People v Williams, 223 Mich App 409, 411; 566 NW2d 649
(1997). The trial court is at liberty to consider defendant’s actions and the seriousness and severity of
the facts and circumstances surrounding the probation violation in arriving at the proper sentence to be
given. Id.; People v Peters, 191 Mich App 159; 477 NW2d 479 (1991).
There is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant. Although
his arrest involved a small quantity of cocaine, he had a prior drug conviction. Defendant failed to
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
comply with the terms of probation even after he was admonished and given a second chance. Under
these circumstances, defendant has failed to show that his sentence
-2
violates the principle of proportionality.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
-3
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.
