Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DEONDRA' TERRELL WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED June 26, 2012

No. 302371 Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 08-024094-FC

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and WHITBECK and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his convictions, following a bench trial, of first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), armed robbery, MCL 750.529, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, MCL 750.157a; MCL 750.529, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Defendant was tried with co-defendants Geoffrey Lawson1 and Cortez Bailey. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder, 15 to 30 years for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and 2 years for felonyfirearm. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm. On September 21, 2008, Saba's Mini Mart was robbed and the clerk, Monir Alyatim, was shot and killed. The surveillance footage presented to the jury shows three men entering the store shortly after 11:00 p.m. The first subject to appear is wearing dark pants and a dark hooded sweatshirt with the hood up. Shortly thereafter, a second subject is seen running up to the front counter. The second subject jumps on the counter, puts his arm over the bulletproof glass, and points a handgun in the direction of the clerk. While the second subject is on the counter, a third subject is seen inside the store holding a pistol grip shotgun. The clerk is seen emptying the registers and handing the money to the second subject. After taking the money, the second subject shoots the clerk and flees the scene with the other subjects. Defendant, Lawson, and Bailey were eventually identified as being involved in the robbery and murder. Lawson was

This case is being submitted with People v Lawson (Docket No. 302128). Following a jury trial, Lawson was convicted of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and felony-firearm.

1

-1-

identified as the person who shot the clerk, while defendant was identified as the suspect holding the pistol grip shotgun. On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to convict him of felony murder. We review this constitutional challenge de novo. People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). "When reviewing a claim that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction, this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution established the essential elements of the crime." People v Kissner, 292 Mich App 526, 533-534; 808 NW2d 522 (2011). Defendant was found guilty of aiding and abetting the murder. Under an aiding and abetting theory, the prosecutor must present sufficient evidence to prove that a defendant: (1) performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of the predicate felony. [People v Riley (After Remand), 468 Mich 135, 140; 659 NW2d 611 (2003).] Defendant's specific contention is that there is no evidence that he possessed the requisite intent to murder. That is, there is no evidence that he aided in the armed robbery with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result. However, malice can be inferred when the defendant sets into a motion a series of events likely to cause death or great bodily harm, People v Bulls, 262 Mich App 618, 626; 687 NW2d 159 (2004), and by the use of a dangerous weapon. Id. at 627. Both defendant and Lawson were armed during the robbery. Defendant paced around the store with a shotgun while Lawson pointed a handgun at the clerk. Although there is no evidence that defendant knew Lawson would kill the clerk, the evidence did show that by being armed during a robbery defendant "`intended to do an act in obvious disregard of life endangering consequences,' thus evidencing his malicious intent[.]" Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, there was sufficient evidence presented to convict defendant of felony murder. Next, defendant argues in his Standard 4 brief that the district court abused its discretion when it bound him over to the circuit court based on evidence not in the possession of the prosecutor.2 However, defendant does not identify the evidence he is referring to, nor how the prosecutor's "non-possession" of the evidence rendered his bindover improper. Nor does

"This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion both a district court's decision to bind a defendant over for trial and a trial court's decision on a motion to quash an information." People v Fletcher, 260 Mich App 531, 551-552; 679 NW2d 127 (2004). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341, 353; 749 NW2d 753 (2008).

2

-2-

defendant explain how or why the district court abused its discretion. Instead, defendant's entire discussion is simply a recitation of various standards of review as they relate to bindovers. We will not rationalize defendant's argument in his stead. People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 195; 774 NW2d 714 (2009). The issue is abandoned. People v Harris, 261 Mich App 44, 50; 680 NW2d 17 (2004). Defendant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the prosecutor to introduce into evidence the preliminary examination testimony of two witnesses because they were deemed unavailable to testify when the prosecutor failed to demonstrate that she exercised due diligences to produce the absent witnesses. Defendant also opines that he was denied his constitutional right of confrontation. However, after the prosecutor made a showing of unavailability, the court asked defense counsel if he had any objection to the use of the prior testimony. Defense counsel's negative response means the issue is waived. People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 111; 631 NW2d 67 (2001). Accordingly, our review is limited to whether defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to the evidence. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show: (1) that counsel's performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). "`Effective assistance of counsel is presumed, and the defendant bears a heavy burden of proving otherwise.'" People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 17; 776 NW2d 314 (2009) (citation omitted). The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DEONDRA' TERRELL WILLIAMS.pdf

Michigan Law