Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v GLENN TERRANCE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Robert P. Young, Jr. Michael F. Cavanagh Marilyn Kelly Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra

FILED MAY 15, 2012 STATE OF MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

No. 141161

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH YOUNG, C.J. Defendant appeals here his conviction of armed robbery. In particular, defendant argues that because he was unsuccessful in feloniously taking or removing any actual property from the intended target of his robbery, there was not a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea to the charge of armed robbery. We disagree. When the

Legislature revised the robbery statute, MCL 750.530, to encompass a "course of conduct" theory of robbery, it specifically included "an attempt to commit the larceny" as sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery itself. We conclude that this amendment

effectuated a substantive change in the law governing robbery in Michigan such that a completed larceny is no longer necessary to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery or armed robbery. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 13, 2006, defendant entered a gas station, declared that he had a gun, and ordered the attendant to give him all the money in the cash register. After the attendant complied, defendant forced the attendant into a back room and fled the scene with approximately $160 in stolen cash. The next day, defendant entered a tobacco shop, approached the clerk with his hand in his jacket, and stated, "You know what this is, just give me what I want." The clerk did not give defendant any money or property, and defendant fled from the store without having stolen anything. apprehended later that day by the police. The prosecutor charged defendant with armed robbery 1 of the gas station and, in a separate information, charged defendant alternatively with assault with intent to rob while armed 2 and armed robbery for the events related to the tobacco shop. Defendant elected to plead guilty in both cases. At defendant's plea hearing, the prosecutor advised that he would dismiss the charge of assault with intent to rob while armed in the tobacco shop case in return for defendant's guilty plea to armed robbery. Defendant was

1 2

MCL 750.529. MCL 750.89.

2

After advising defendant of his options and constitutional rights, the circuit court established a factual basis for the plea relating to the incident that occurred at the tobacco shop. Under questioning by the prosecutor, defendant admitted that he had entered the tobacco shop with the intent to steal money, had his hand "up under" his coat, and told the clerk, "You know what this is, just give me what I want." Defendant further admitted that "it was [his] intent, at that time, for [the clerk] to give [him] the money out of the cash register." The court accepted defendant's guilty plea. 3 On February 9, 2007, the court sentenced defendant pursuant to a plea entered in accordance with People v Cobbs 4 to concurrent prison terms of 24 to 40 years for the tobacco shop and gas station robberies. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his pleas, contending that an adequate factual basis did not exist to support either conviction. Pertinent here, defendant argued that there was no evidence that he had taken or removed any property from the tobacco shop and that, absent a completed larceny, he could not be found guilty of armed robbery. The circuit court denied defendant's motions. The court ruled that the language of the armed robbery statute as amended in 2004 allows for a conviction based on an attempted

3 4

Defendant also entered a nolo contendere plea with regard to the gas station robbery.

People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276; 505 NW2d 208 (1993). Defendant and the court agreed that defendant's minimum sentence would not exceed 24 years.

3

larceny, a basis that the plea discussions substantiated. 5 The Court of Appeals granted defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal, limited to the issue whether a factual basis existed for his conviction of the tobacco store robbery. 6 In a split decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 7 The majority acknowledged that while at common law a robbery required a completed larceny, the crimes of robbery and armed robbery now encompass attempts to commit those offenses following the 2004 statutory amendments. The dissenting judge argued that when the 2004 revisions are viewed through the "lens of common-law definitions," there is inadequate support for the conclusion that the armed robbery statute would permit a conviction without an accomplished larceny. 8 We granted defendant's application for leave to appeal to determine "whether a larceny needs to be completed before a defendant may be convicted of armed robbery." 9

5

The circuit court also denied defendant's motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea with regard to the gas station robbery, holding that the plea proceeding and the police report established a sufficient factual basis for the plea. People v Williams, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 16, 2008 (Docket No. 284585). People v Williams, 288 Mich App 67; 792 NW2d 384 (2010). Id. at 91, 93 (GLEICHER, J., dissenting). People v Williams, 489 Mich 856 (2011).

6

7 8 9

4

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of MCL 750.529 and MCL 750.530 and, in particular, whether the Legislature intended to remove the completed larceny requirement from the crime of robbery when it amended those statutes in 2004. Matters of statutory interpretation raise questions of law, which this Court reviews de novo. 10 III. THE CRIME OF ROBBERY IN MICHIGAN In this appeal, we are concerned with the statutes pertaining to robbery, MCL 750.530, and armed robbery, MCL 750.529. At common law, the offense of robbery was defined as "the felonious taking of money or goods of value from the person of another or in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear." 11 "To constitute robbery, it [was] essential that there be a `taking from the person.'" 12 Thus, common law robbery required a completed larceny. Armed robbery required the same showing with the additional element that the robber was armed with a dangerous weapon. 13 The crimes of robbery and armed robbery have been codified by Michigan statute since 1838. 14 All subsequent iterations of the robbery statutes required a completed

10 11

People v Morey, 461 Mich 325, 329; 603 NW2d 250 (1999).

People v Covelesky, 217 Mich 90, 96; 185 NW 770 (1921) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
12 13 14

Id. at 97 (citation and quotation marks omitted). People v Calvin, 60 Mich 113, 119; 26 NW 851 (1886). See 1838 RS, pt 4, tit I, ch 3,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V GLENN TERRANCE WILLIAMS.pdf

Michigan Law