Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, V TONY BRENT BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED December 21, 2010

No. 293870 Calhoun Circuit Court LC No. 2009-001059-FH

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and WILDER and STEPHENS, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of unlawfully driving away an automobile, MCL 750.413, and was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to four to six years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals by right. We affirm. Defendant first claims insufficient evidence supported his conviction. We disagree. We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo. People v Cline, 276 Mich App 634, 642; 741 NW2d 563 (2007). When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, this Court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the elements of the charged offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Reasonable inferences that arise from circumstantial evidence may constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750; 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). The jury determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight accorded to evidence; thus, we resolve in favor of the jury's verdict any conflict in the evidence. People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 624; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). The elements of unlawfully driving away an automobile are (1) taking possession of a vehicle, (2) driving the vehicle away, (3) acting willfully, and (4) without authority or permission. MCL 750.413; People v Dutra, 155 Mich App 681, 685; 400 NW2d 619 (1986). The statute is not aimed at preventing theft, but rather to prevent the unauthorized use of vehicles. People v Hendricks, 446 Mich 435, 448; 521 NW2d 546 (1994). We conclude that sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction of unlawfully driving away an automobile. Undisputed evidence established that defendant possessed the vehicle, and that he did so without the owner's permission or authority. Defendant's argument that the evidence does not support a finding that his possession of the vehicle was done -1-

"willfully," is without merit. When defendant was forced to stop the car, he immediately ran from the scene. While defendant claimed he did so because he knew the police were being called, he did not have a driver's license, and he needed to throw away drugs he possessed, it was within the jury's discretion to either believe or not believe such testimony. A reasonable fact finder could also conclude that defendant ran from the scene when stopped due to guilty knowledge. Such a reasonable inference arising from the circumstantial evidence constitutes satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime. Carines, 460 Mich at 757. Defendant next argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to add a witness on the morning trial was scheduled to begin. We review a trial court's decision to permit or deny the late endorsement of a witness for an abuse of discretion. People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341, 379; 749 NW2d 753 (2008). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Id. A defendant has a constitutionally guaranteed right to present a defense, which includes the right to call witnesses. US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V TONY BRENT BANKS.pdf

Michigan Law