If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

December 12, 2019

v No. 344589

Manistee Circuit Court

SHANE WESLEY GILLETTE, LC No. 16-004582-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted1 the sentence imposed by the trial court

following the revocation of defendant’s probation which the trial court imposed after his 

conviction by a jury of possession with intent to deliver marijuana in violation of MCL 

333.7401(2)(d)(iii), a felony punishable up to a four-year maximum imprisonment. The trial 

court originally sentenced defendant to serve 42 months’ probation with nine months in jail, but 

because he violated his probation the court extended his jail term to 12 months. Upon release, 

defendant again violated his probation resulting in supervised probation. Later he again violated 

his probation and pleaded guilty to two additional probation violations resulting in the revocation 

of his probation. The trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months to 48 months’ imprisonment 

with 472 days credit for time served in jail. We affirm.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 2, 2016, a jury convicted defendant of possession of marijuana with intent to 

deliver in violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii). The sentencing guidelines recommended a 

minimum sentence of 2 to 17 months’ imprisonment. The trial court sentenced defendant in July 

2016 to 42 months’ probation with nine months to be served in jail as a condition of probation. 

 1 People v Gillette, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, issued November 14, 2018 

(Docket No. 344589).
-2-

During his jail term, defendant violated probation by engaging in abusive behavior toward a 

probation officer and toward two inmates. Defendant appealed his original conviction and one 

of the probation violation convictions. This Court affirmed both convictions. People v Gillette, 

unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 17, 2017 (Docket Nos. 

334099; 336891).

After completing his 12-month jail term, defendant began supervised probation in the 

community. Three months later, in July 2017, he again violated his probation by consuming 

alcohol. The sentencing court permitted him to continue on supervised probation.

Defendant’s probation agent instructed him to undergo a substance abuse assessment and 

attend treatment if the assessment indicated that he needed to do so. During the assessment on 

December 5, 2017, defendant became agitated, argumentative, and aggressive with the counselor 

after she informed him that he needed to complete treatment. Because of his conduct the 

counselor asked defendant to leave. Defendant responded by pounding his fist on the 

counselor’s desk, yelling at her, and pointing his finger in her face. He refused to leave and told 

the counselor that she could call the police if she wanted because he had already had contact with 

them. He eventually left of his own accord. Then on December 10, 2017, while at Michigan 

Works, because of his conduct, police were called. Defendant did not report his encounter with 

the police to his probation agent.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of violating the terms of his probation by 

engaging in assaultive, abusive, threatening, or intimidating behavior toward the counselor, and 

by having contact with police and not reporting it to his probation officer. Defendant admitted 

that he pounded his fist on the counselor’s desk and intimidated her. He also admitted that he 

had contact with the police at Michigan Works because the police were called and admitted that 

he failed to inform his probation agent of that contact.

Before defendant’s sentencing hearing, the Michigan Department of Corrections prepared 

an update to his original Presentencing Investigation Report (PSIR) probation violation reports 

that described a total of eight probation violations committed by defendant since being sentenced 

to probation. The PSIR informed the sentencing court of the severity of the violations which 

included incidents of repeated assaultive, abusive, threatening, or intimidating behavior on 

several occasions.

At the sentencing hearing held on February 5, 2018, the sentencing court first noted that 

defendant’s PSIR had been updated and inquired whether defendant reviewed it and had any

objections, and desired anything added, corrected, or deleted from it. Defendant acknowledged 

that he reviewed it and that he had no changes to it. Defendant remarked that the updated PSIR 

did not recommend completion of probation and treatment. When the sentencing court discussed 

the issue, defendant stated that the PSIR indicated that he lacked eligibility to participate in the 

Special Alternative Incarceration Program (SAI). The court informed defendant that the PSIR 

did not state that he was not eligible but offered the opinion that he would not be successful in 

such program. The court told defendant that if it sent defendant to prison the Michigan 

Department of Corrections would likely seek input from the court regarding his participation in 

SAI.
-3-

The sentencing court expressed concern because defendant failed to progress on 

probation. The sentencing court recited the factual background and considered the numerous 

incidents that led to the revocation of defendant’s probation. The court noted that defendant 

previously engaged in similar behavior and continued to engage in assaultive, abusive, 

threatening, or intimidating behavior. The court considered that defendant had spent a 

significant portion of his probation in jail beyond the initial jail sentence because of such 

behaviors. The court explained that it initially sentenced defendant to probation in an effort to 

rehabilitate him.

The sentencing court remarked to defendant that it had been optimistic that defendant 

could successfully complete probation but he failed to do so. The court explained that it could 

not allow someone who repeatedly engaged in the type of behavior defendant committed while 

on probation to remain out on probation in the community. The sentencing court stated that the 

benefits of probation had been exhausted in defendant’s case. Therefore, the sentencing court 

revoked defendant’s probation and ordered that he be committed to the Michigan Department of 

Corrections for a minimum term of 32 months to the statutory maximum of four years with credit 

for time served.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court’s upward departure from a defendant’s calculated guidelines 

range for reasonableness. People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 391-392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). 

We review for an abuse of discretion the reasonableness of a sentence imposed by a sentencing 

court. People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 459-460; 902 NW2d 327 (2017). A sentencing court 

abuses its discretion if the departure sentence violates the principle of proportionality, which 

requires sentences “to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the 

offense and the offender.” Id. at 460, quoting People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 

NW2d 1 (1990).

III. ANALYSIS

Sentencing courts must consider the sentencing guidelines when issuing a sentence after 

the revocation of a defendant’s probation. People v Hendrick, 472 Mich 555, 560; 697 NW2d 

511 (2005). In Lockridge, our Supreme Court held that Michigan’s sentencing guidelines are 

advisory rather than mandatory. Lockridge, 498 Mich at 391. Nevertheless, a sentencing court 

must consult the applicable sentencing guidelines range and consider it when imposing a 

sentence and “must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.” Id. at 

391-392 (citations omitted).

“If a probation order is revoked, the court may sentence the probationer in the same 

manner and to the same penalty as the court might have done if the probation order had never 

been made.” MCL 771.4 “While the sentencing court may sentence the probationer in the same 

manner and to the same penalty, nothing in the statute requires it to do so.” Hendricks, 472 Mich 

at 562 (emphasis in original). Notwithstanding that the sentencing court is actually resentencing 

on the original offense, it may consider defendant’s conduct while on probation and other factors 

for resentencing. Id. at 562-563. If the sentencing court imposes a departure sentence, it must be
-4-

reasonable based on the principle of proportionality outlined in Milbourn. Steanhouse, 500 Mich 

at 462.

Defendant argues that the sentencing court did not justify departing from the sentencing 

guidelines recommendation that he serve a minimum sentence of 2 to 17 months’ imprisonment. 

We disagree.

“The first inquiry in our reasonableness review is whether there were ‘circumstances that 

are not adequately embodied within the variables used to score the guidelines.’ ” People v 

Steanhouse (On Remand), 322 Mich App 233, 239; 911 NW2d 253 (2017), vacated in part on 

other grounds ___ Mich ___; 933 NW2d 276 (2019) quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 659-660. 

“[T]he sentencing court is not precluded from considering events surrounding the probation 

violation when sentencing the defendant on the original offense.” People v Hendrick, 472 Mich 

555, 557; 697 NW2d 511 (2005). A trial court may upwardly depart from the sentencing 

guidelines range on the basis of a defendant’s threat to public safety if there are objective and 

verifiable facts to support the trial court’s determination. People v Anderson, 298 Mich App 

178, 189-190; 825 NW2d 678 (2012). A defendant’s past struggles to rehabilitate may support 

this finding. Id. at 190. 

In this case, the record reflects that the trial court considered the original offense and the 

offender but also reflected upon defendant’s multiple serious violations of the conditions of his 

probation to which he admitted his guilt and did not dispute that he committed the conduct 

warranting the revocation of his probation. Defendant’s probation violations included criminal 

conduct involving making threatening statements to a jail officer, physically assaulting other 

inmates, and making aggressive, abusive and intimidating behaviors toward a substance abuse 

counselor. The trial court expressed concern that it could not place defendant in society because 

of the way he interacted with others which demonstrated that efforts toward his rehabilitation 

through probation failed. Defendant’s original sentencing guidelines range calculation did not 

and could not take into account any of the criminal conduct that defendant committed during his 

probation.

The sentencing court imposed defendant’s sentence based on his history of total disregard 

for the law and legal system, his engagement in new and violent criminal behavior, his failure to 

comply with his probation conditions, and failure to rehabilitate. The sentencing court imposed a 

reasonable and proportionate sentence under the circumstances presented in this case. Because 

of defendant’s repeated history of disrespect for the legal system, and his demonstrated inability 

to comply with probation even after a jail sentence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

imposing a prison sentence of 32 months to 48 months’ imprisonment.

Affirmed.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ James Robert Redford