Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v BRUCE LEE PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED April 20, 2010

No. 288988 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LC No. 2007-001823-FC

Before: SERVITTO, P.J., AND FITZGERALD AND BECKERING, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions for armed robbery, MCL 750.529, first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), unlawful imprisonment, MCL 750.349b, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, and conspiracy to commit first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.157a. Defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10, to 263 months to 50 years' imprisonment for armed robbery, 129 months to 30 years' imprisonment for first-degree home invasion, 87 months to 221/2 years' imprisonment for unlawful imprisonment, two years' imprisonment for felony-firearm with credit for 353 days in jail, and 129 months to 30 years' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit first-degree home invasion, with the sentences to run concurrent, except the sentence for felony-firearm, which is to precede and run consecutive to the other sentences. We affirm. This case arises out of a November 16, 2007, early morning home invasion and armed robbery perpetrated by several men at a Kalamazoo, Michigan duplex where five young college women lived and a friend was staying the night. Defendant contends that he happened upon the home invasion, believing it to be the site of a party, and tried to stop the robbery as it was occurring, but hid in fear when a SWAT team arrived and surrounded the house.1 At trial, several of the victims identified defendant as being the first intruder and actively participating in the robbery.

Despite countless requests over a police loudspeaker to leave the house, defendant remained inside, alone, for several hours after all others had evacuated. Police deployed tear gas into the house, called in a K9 unit, and used a thermal heat detector to pinpoint defendant's whereabouts in the attic, which he accessed through a bathroom ceiling.

1

-1-

Defendant argues that the prosecutor denied him his constitutional right to silence and due process by eliciting extensive testimony regarding his post-arrest silence. Because defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor's questions, we review defendant's claims for plain error that affected his substantial rights. See People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 453-454; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). We find that the prosecutor's questions referred to defendant's silence before he received Miranda2 warnings, thus the due process clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitution, US Const, Am V, XIV; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V BRUCE LEE PARKER.pdf

Michigan Law