Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v LONNIE L. PARKER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED September 21, 2010

No. 290941 Muskegon Circuit Court LC No. 08-056585-FH

Before: MURPHY, C.J., and SAWYER and MURRAY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84, and unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530. He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to concurrent prison terms of 9 to 25 years for the assault conviction and 15 to 25 years for the robbery conviction. He was also ordered to pay restitution of $201,833 for the victim's medical expenses. He appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant was convicted of assaulting and robbing his cousin, Darin Sargent. The evidence at trial showed that defendant and Sargent were involved in an altercation earlier on the day of the assault. Later that day, defendant confronted Sargent at a liquor store. The evidence indicated that defendant pushed Sargent outside the liquor store and then struck him in the head, causing him to fall to the ground. Defendant then straddled Sargent while Sargent was lying on the ground and struck him three more times in the head. Sargent received a significant concussion and a fractured jaw that had to be surgically repaired. Sargent testified that he had $180 in his pants pocket before the assault and that the money was missing when his pants were returned to him at the hospital. Sargent was also missing an earring that he was wearing before the assault. Witnesses observed defendant reach into Sargent's pockets after the assault. A surveillance video also depicted defendant reaching into Sargent's pants pockets, after which he appeared to look in his hands and then leave. Defendant admitted assaulting Sargent, but denied intending to cause great bodily harm. Defendant also denied taking Sargent's money or earring. He claimed that he reached into Sargent's pockets only to determine whether he had a gun, given that Sargent had threatened him during the earlier altercation. Defendant raises several issues on appeal, both through appointed appellate counsel and in a pro se supplemental brief, filed pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 20046, Standard 4.

-1-

I. AMENDMENT OF THE INFORMATION Defendant first argues through appellate counsel that the prosecutor was impermissibly allowed to amend the information at the preliminary examination to include the unarmed robbery charge. Defendant preserved this issue with respect to his claim that the amendment violated MCL 767.76 and prejudiced his ability to defend against the new charge, inasmuch as he raised these issues in an appropriate motion in the circuit court. However, defendant did not argue below that the amendment violated his right to counsel. Therefore, this latter argument, which is presented in defendant's Standard 4 brief, is not preserved. People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305, 309; 684 NW2d 669 (2004) (an objection on one ground is insufficient to preserve an appellate attack on a different ground). A trial court's decision whether to permit an amendment to an information is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v McGee, 258 Mich App 683, 686-687; 672 NW2d 191 (2003). Unpreserved claims of error are reviewed for plain error affecting a defendant's substantial rights. People v Hanks, 276 Mich App 91, 92; 740 NW2d 530 (2007). The constitutional right to due process requires that an accused be sufficiently apprised of the charges against him. People v Higuera, 244 Mich App 429, 442; 625 NW2d 444 (2001). Defendant is correct that MCL 767.76 does not permit an amendment that adds a new offense. That statute only permits amendments that cure defects in the statement of an offense that is already sufficiently charged to fairly apprise the accused of its nature. McGee, 258 Mich App at 688. However, the amendment was permissible pursuant to MCR 6.112(H).1 People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 459-460, 460 n 18; 579 NW2d 868 (1998); McGee, 258 Mich App at 690-693. Further, because the unarmed robbery charge was added at the preliminary examination and was supported by evidence at that proceeding, there is no merit to defendant's argument that he was deprived of adequate notice or a sufficient opportunity to defend against the charge at trial. Id.; see also People v Hunt, 442 Mich 359; 501 NW2d 151 (1993) (holding that the prosecution should have been permitted to amend the information at the conclusion of the preliminary examination by substituting a new charge in place of the original charge where there was sufficient proof of the new charge presented at the examination and the defendant would not incur any unacceptable prejudice). Thus, the circuit court did not err in allowing the amendment. We also reject defendant's pro se argument that the amendment violated his right to counsel because, at the time he waived his right to counsel at the preliminary examination, he had only been charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm. The right to counsel is linked to critical stages in a criminal prosecution, not a particular charge. The Sixth Amendment directly guarantees the right to counsel at all critical stages in criminal prosecutions. US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V LONNIE L PARKER JR.pdf

Michigan Law