STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS"

Transcription

1 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2001 v No Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL ALLEN CUPP, LC No AR Defendant-Appellee. Before: Collins, P.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor/unlawful blood alcohol level, second offense notice, MCL (1); MSA (1). He moved to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test that indicated his blood alcohol content was.12 grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood. Defendant argued that the results of the test were unreliable because the test was not administered within a reasonable time. The test was given two hours and thirty-six minutes after defendant was stopped by the police. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the district court ordered suppression of the test results. The prosecution appealed, and the circuit court affirmed. The prosecution appeals to this Court on leave granted. We reverse. The prosecution argues that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to apply the correct standard in determining the admissibility of the test results. The prosecution claims that any delay in the administration of the blood alcohol test pertains to the weight to be given to the evidence, and not to its admissibility. A trial court s decision to admit or exclude evidence is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 494; 577 NW2d 673 (1998); People v Mayhew, 236 Mich App 112, 121; 600 NW2d 370 (1999). However, a preliminary issue of law regarding admissibility based upon construction of a court rule or statute is subject to de novo review. People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). The trial court s ruling was premised upon construction of the implied consent statute. Thus, our review is de novo. The implied consent statute allows the admission of test results showing a defendant s blood alcohol level. The statute provides, in relevant part: The amount of alcohol... in a driver s blood or urine or the amount of alcohol in a person s breath at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the person s blood, urine, or breath is admissible into evidence in any -1-

2 civil or criminal proceeding. MCL a(6)(a); MSA (1)(6)(a). Although not expressly stated in the language of the statute, this Court has interpreted the implied consent statute as requiring the prosecution to make a preliminary showing that the test was performed within a reasonable time of the offense. See People v Schwab, 173 Mich App 101, ; 433 NW2d 824 (1989), overruled by People v Wager, 460 Mich 118; 594 NW2d 487 (1999); People v Krulikowski, 60 Mich App 28, 31-33; 230 NW2d 290 (1975), overruled by Wager, supra; People v Kozar, 54 Mich App 503, 509 n 2; 221 NW2d 170 (1974), overruled by Wager, supra. In Wager, our Supreme Court held that this Court s interpretation of the implied consent statute, as set forth in Kozar and its progeny, is erroneous. Wager, supra at The Supreme Court held that based upon a clear reading of the statute, there is no requirement that chemical analysis be performed within a reasonable time of the offense. Id. The Court stated that any delay in the administration of a chemical test goes to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence: Pursuant to the express language of the statute, test results are admissible... and will be considered, MCL a(6)(b)(ii); MSA (1)(6)(b)(ii), and the prosecutor is not required to introduce expert testimony on this issue. To the extent that the passage of time reduces the probative value of the test, the diminution goes to weight, not admissibility, and is for the parties to argue before the finder of fact. [Wager, supra at ] In People v Campbell, 236 Mich App 490, 506; 601 NW2d 114 (1999), this Court reiterated the Wager holding, and held that the only threshold showing for the admissibility of chemical test results is relevance. 1 We conclude that, pursuant to Wager, the district court s ruling was based upon an erroneous interpretation of the statute. The delay in administering defendant s blood alcohol test affects the weight to be given to the test results by the factfinder, and not its admissibility. The prosecution next claims that that the circuit court erred in failing to give the Wager decision retroactive effect and apply its holding to the facts in the instant case. We agree. 1 In addition to finding Wager inapplicable to this case, the circuit court concluded that the trial court s refusal to admit the blood alcohol test results was proper because the results were unreliable. The dissent concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the test results under MRE 403. We disagree with the dissent s conclusion given that our Supreme Court has clearly stated that the delay in administering a blood alcohol test affects the weight to be given to the results, not its admissibility. Wager, supra. Therefore, we question the logic expressed in Campbell of requiring a threshold showing of relevance as it relates to delay. Given Wager s clear statement that delay does not affect a test s admissibility, any threshold showing of relevance should not concern any delay in administering the test. Regardless, we believe the test results at issue in the present case are admissible under the reasoning of Campbell. In Campbell, this Court held that a delay of two hours and twenty-four minutes was not so long as to render the test administered to the defendant unreliable. Campbell, supra at We find no justification or excuse for holding that the additional twelve minutes of delay in the present case makes defendant s test results unreliable. -2-

3 The question whether a judicial decision should have retroactive application is a question of law, subject to de novo review. People v Sexton, 458 Mich 43, 52; 580 NW2d 404 (1998). Resolution of the matter in turn rests on the decisional basis of the holding. Id. The general rule is that judicial decisions are given full retroactive effect. People v Neal, 459 Mich 72, 80; 586 NW2d 716 (1998). However, in criminal cases, ex post facto and due process concerns prevent retroactive application in some cases. People v Doyle, 451 Mich 93, ; 545 NW2d 627 (1996). This is especially true where the decision is unforeseeable and has the effect of changing existing law. Id. at 101. But, retroactive application does not implicate due process or ex post facto concerns where the decision does not change the law and is not unforeseeable. Id. Our Supreme Court s analysis in Doyle is instructive to the case at bar. In that case, the Court considered whether its opinion in People v Bewersdorf, 438 Mich 55; 475 NW2d 231 (1991), addressing the interaction between the Motor Vehicle Code and the habitual offender statute, should be given full retroactive application. Doyle, supra at 95. The Doyle case arose while the Bewersdorf appeal was pending in the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court s decision in Bewersdorf was issued, the trial court granted the defendant s motion to dismiss the habitual offender charge, determining that application of Bewersdorf to the defendant s conduct would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. Id. at On the prosecution s appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court s ruling, finding that that application of Bewersdorf to Mr. Doyle s conduct would effectively increase the authorized penalty for a crime after the fact, in violation of ex post facto principles. Doyle, supra at 98, quoting People v Doyle, 203 Mich App 294, 296; 512 NW2d 59 (1994). This Court determined that the Supreme Court s holding in Bewersdorf changed the law. Doyle, supra at 98-99, quoting Doyle, supra, 203 Mich App 297. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bewersdorf did not create new law, and therefore, its retroactive application did not implicate ex post facto and due process issues. Doyle, supra at 108. The Supreme Court reasoned that Bewersdorf was based on a clear reading of unambiguous statutory provisions[.] Id. at 103. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Bewersdorf case addressed a question of statutory interpretation that had never been previously decided at the Supreme Court level. Id. Because the Bewersdorf Court had determined that the proper interpretation of the statute lay in the clear language of the statute, as enacted by the Legislature, the Doyle Court concluded that Bewersdorf was not unforeseeable, and did not create new law. Id. at , 108. The Bewersdorf Court merely gave effect to an unambiguous statute, implementing the intent of the Legislature. Thus, the law was as we interpreted it to be, because of the nature of the unambiguous statutory language. Id. at 104. The Doyle Court explained: This approach taken by the Court of Appeals overlooks the hierarchical nature of the court system, as well as the special rule of the Legislature when it provides a clear statutory enactment. In the view of the Court of Appeals majority, the rule of law in this state is more offended by the retroactive application of a controlling decision by this Court, than it is by a continued -3-

4 application of an erroneous and overruled decision by the Court of Appeals. As stated in part II, we find that Bewersdorf was not an unforeseeable decision that had the effect of changing the law. [Id. at 109.] The Court summarized its holding as follows: Accordingly, we hold that, as in this case, where a precisely drafted statute, unambiguous on its face, is interpreted by this Court for the first time, there has not been a change in the law. Where the Legislature has passed an unambiguous statute, that statute is the law. Our role is to enforce the law as written. Our holding today is grounded in the belief that it is perfectly clear that anyone reading the habitual offender act and the Motor Vehicle Code easily could have concluded that the Tucker decision was contrary to their plain meanings. [Id. at 113.] Applying the above analysis to the case at bar, we agree with the prosecution that the Wager decision should be applied retroactively because it did not create new law. In Wager, the Supreme Court overruled an erroneous interpretation of the statute governing the admissibility of blood test results. As observed by the Supreme Court, the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, and it was in effect at the time of defendant s offense. Wager, supra at 123, 125. The origin of the reasonable time requirement stemmed from a footnote in Kozar containing dictum. The footnote stated that one of the prerequisites to the admissibility of test results was a showing by the prosecution that the test was performed within a reasonable time. Kozar, supra at 509 n 2. This footnote contained no citation of authority, and was not necessary to the resolution of the issue in that case. Id. 2 The Kozar footnote was subsequently cited by this Court in Krulikowski in which this Court reversed the defendant s conviction because one of the prerequisites to admissibility had not been shown. Krulikowski, supra at 32. In Schwab, this Court held that the results of a breathalyzer test were inadmissible, where the test was administered 122 and 133 minutes after the driver s arrest. Schwab, supra at 103. The Wager Court found no basis for requiring the prosecution to show, as a condition of admissibility, that the test was given within a reasonable time, because such language is not found in the statute. The statute clearly and unambiguously permits the admission of the test results. The Supreme Court reasoned: 2 The Kozar footnote gives four foundational requirements, providing: These prerequisites, not at issue in the case at bar, include establishing the qualifications of the operator administering the test, the method or procedure followed in administering the test, that the test was performed within a reasonable time after the arrest, and the reliability of the testing device. Foundation testimony concerning these prerequisites must be introduced before the test results may be admitted into evidence. Kozar, supra at 509 n

5 Our Legislature has enacted several provisions governing the admissibility of blood tests. In reviewing those provisions, we find a flat statement that [t]he amount of alcohol... in a driver s blood... as shown by chemical analysis of the person s blood... is admissible into evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding. MCL a(6)(a); MSA (1)(6)(a). Nowhere does the section impose a requirement concerning the interval of time in which the test must be given. The section further provides that the Department of State Police is to promulgate rules concerning the administration of tests under the section. MCL a(6)(g); MSA (1)(6)(g). However, those rules are also silent with regard to a time requirement. To be clear, the Legislature is only stating a principle of admissibility. The parties are free to introduce any other competent evidence bearing on the question whether a driver was driving under the influence or otherwise in violation of this portion of the statute. MCL a(7); MSA (1)(7). Despite the absence of such a requirement in the statutory section, the Court of Appeals has developed the principle that a blood test is inadmissible unless given within a reasonable time. People v Kozar, 54 Mich App 503, 508; 221 NW2d 170 (1974); People v Schwab, 173 Mich App 101; 433 NW2d 824 (1988). [Wager, supra at , footnotes omitted.] The Supreme Court found no basis for this Court s earlier opinions which impose this burden on the prosecution to establish a reasonable time frame in order to admit test results: Looking at the origin of the rule as set forth in Kozar and the absence of a dispositive ruling on point from this Court, we are satisfied that no sound reason exists to engraft the reasonable time element onto the clear language of the statute. Thus, to the extent that Kozar and its progeny adopt a reasonable time element, they are expressly overruled. * * * In [Krulikowski], the Court of Appeals failed to apply clear statutory language. Pursuant to the express language of the statute, test results are admissible... and will be considered, MCL a(6)(b)(ii); MSA (1)(6)(b)(ii), and the prosecutor is not required to introduce expert testimony on this issue. To the extent that the passage of time reduces the probative value of the test, the diminution goes to weight, not admissibility, and is for the parties to argue before the finder of fact. [Wager, supra at , footnote omitted.] The plain reading of the statute permits the admissibility of blood alcohol test results, without qualification for a time frame in which the test must have been administered. Thus, Wager did not change the law, nor did it create new law. As in Doyle, the Supreme Court s -5-

6 opinion in Wager addressed this issue for the first time and corrected a lower court s erroneous interpretation of a clear and unambiguous statute. Because Wager, did not create new law, its retroactive application does not implicate ex post facto concerns. For these reasons, we conclude that Wager, should be given retroactive application, and that the circuit court erred in declining to apply Wager, to the facts of this case. Given our resolution of these issues, we need not address the prosecution s third issue on appeal. Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. /s/ Jeffrey G. Collins /s/ Brian K. Zahra -6-

7 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2001 v No Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL ALLEN CUPP, LC No AR Defendant-Appellee. Before: Collins, P.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ. JANSEN, J. (dissenting). The prosecution has appealed this case, on leave granted, from decisions of the district court and circuit court ordering that defendant s blood alcohol test results be suppressed. I would affirm these rulings. On September 16, 1996, defendant was driving in the city of Hazel Park at 1:12 a.m. when he made a prohibited right turn at a red traffic light. He was immediately pulled over by Hazel Park police officers and he told the police that he had consumed two bottles of beer within the past hour. Defendant refused a preliminary breath test, but police officers subsequently obtained a search warrant. Two blood samples were drawn from defendant at 3:48 a.m. and 3:49 a.m. and both revealed a blood alcohol level of.12 percent. Defendant was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor, second offense. MCL (1); MSA (1). On October 30, 1998, defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood alcohol tests, contending that the results were inadmissible because the tests were not taken within a reasonable time. On February 5, 1999, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and two expert witnesses testified: David Schneider, PhD., an associate professor of pharmacology at Wayne State University Medical School, testified on behalf of defendant and Julia Pearson, PhD., a forensic scientist trained in liver toxicology with the Michigan State Police Crime Laboratory, testified on behalf of the prosecution. 1 On March 1, 1999, the district court issued a 1 Schneider s doctorate is in pharmacology and Pearson s doctorate is in pharmacology, toxicology, and environmental toxicology. -1-

8 written opinion ruling that the blood alcohol tests were too remote in time to indicate reliably defendant s blood alcohol content at the time that he was operating his motor vehicle. The district court s decision was entirely supported by case law at the time that it issued its decision. Beginning with People v Kozar, 54 Mich App 503; 221 NW2d 170 (1974), the appellate courts had held that the implied consent statute, MCL a(6)(a); MSA (1)(6)(a), required the prosecution to make a preliminary showing that the test was performed within a reasonable time of the offense. Accord, People v Wager, 233 Mich App 1; 592 NW2d 389 (1998); People v Hanna, 223 Mich App 466; 567 NW2d 12 (1997); People v Jacobsen, 205 Mich App 302; 517 NW2d 323 (1994), rev d on other gds 448 Mich 639; 532 NW2d 838 (1995); People v Schwab, 173 Mich App 101; 433 NW2d 824 (1989); People v Krulikowski, 60 Mich App 28; 230 NW2d 290 (1975). Further, whether a sufficient foundation had been laid for the admissibility of the blood alcohol tests was a question for the court within its discretion. Schwab, supra, p 104. The prosecution appealed the district court s decision to the circuit court and the circuit court affirmed the district court s decision. By June of 1999, three months after the district court issued its decision, but before the circuit court issued its decision, our Supreme Court decided People v Wager, 460 Mich 118; 594 NW2d 487 (1999), and explicitly overruled Kozar and its progeny. The Court in Wager held that [t]o the extent that the passage of time reduces the probative value of the [blood alcohol] test, the diminution goes to weight, not admissibility, and is the for parties to argue before the trier of fact. Id., p 126. The main question for the circuit court was whether the Supreme Court s decision in Wager should be given retroactive affect since Wager had not been decided at the time that the district court issued its decision. The circuit court ruled that Wager should not be applied retroactively and the majority reverses on this issue and concludes that Wager is applicable to this case. Although I do not disagree with the majority on this point, I would affirm the circuit court on the alternative basis that the blood alcohol tests cannot be admitted under the threshold relevancy requirement of MRE 401, 402, and 403. The majority has glossed over this issue in footnote one of its opinion, but I believe that this issue deserves much closer scrutiny. In People v Campbell, 236 Mich App 490, 506; 601 NW2d 114 (1999), an opinion issued after the Supreme Court s decision in Wager, this Court held that the implied consent statute and the policy regarding drinking and driving support the conclusion that the only prerequisite to admission of blood alcohol test results is a threshold relevancy requirement, as codified in MRE 401, 402, and 403. To the extent that the majority questions or criticizes this holding in Campbell, I would first note that the opinion is precedentially binding and must be followed under MCR 7.215(H)(1). Moreover, Campbell was decided after Wager and fully acknowledged and applied the Supreme Court s decision in Wager. Finally, I believe that the decision in Campbell is a correct one because the admission of any evidence is always subject to the threshold relevancy requirements of MRE 401, 402, and 403. See People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 497; 577 NW2d 673 (1998) (the touchstone of admissibility is set forth under MRE 402, which provides that all relevant evidence is admissible and that irrelevant evidence is not admissible); Campbell, supra, p 502 ( all evidence continues to be subject to all other applicable precedents and rules regarding the admissibility of evidence ). -2-

9 Turning to the decisions of the lower courts, the decision whether to admit evidence is within the trial court s discretion and such a decision will be reversed only where there is an abuse of discretion. People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). Whether a rule of evidence or statute precludes admission of the evidence is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Id. The district court concluded that the blood alcohol tests were too remote to indicate reliability and noted plaintiff s expert witness testimony that defendant s blood alcohol level could have been below the legal limit at the time of the offense because he had, at the time of the offense, a sufficient amount of unabsorbed alcohol in his stomach that later contributed to a.12 percent blood alcohol result that occurred two hours and thirty-six minutes after the traffic violations. The ruling was affirmed by the circuit court on the basis of MRE I cannot conclude that the district court s ruling was an abuse of discretion. Here, defendant admitted to drinking two bottles of beer in the hour preceding his traffic violation. The blood alcohol tests were taken two hours and thirty-six minutes after the traffic violation. Because of the delay in giving the blood alcohol tests, it was within the province of the district court to rule that the delay of two hours and thirty-six minutes was so long that the test results were unreliable and, therefore, that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. MRE 403. Further, considering the length of the delay in taking the blood tests, the delay could be considered to be so long that the test results did not have some tendency to make the fact of defendant s alleged intoxication at the time of the traffic violation to be more or less probable. MRE 401. The danger in allowing the evidence is that the jury could conclude that because defendant s blood alcohol level was.12 percent more than 2 ½ hours after the police stop, it must have been higher at 1:12 a.m. However, the testimony of the expert witnesses at the evidentiary hearing indicated the difficulty in determining what defendant s blood alcohol level was at the time of the police stop and that such an assumption is not necessarily true. Schneider testified that total absorption of alcohol occurs in 1 to 1 ½ hours after consumption, while Pearson testified that total absorption occurs thirty-five to forty-five minutes after consumption on an empty stomach. Schneider stated that given the amount of information he had, no one could extrapolate backward to determine defendant s blood alcohol level at 1:12 a.m. Pearson believed that it was possible to predict defendant s blood alcohol level at 1:12 a.m. under two different scenarios: (1) assuming total absorption of alcohol at 1:12 a.m., and (2) assuming that the alcohol was not totally absorbed at 1:12 a.m. However, Pearson testified that it was possible that defendant did not have a blood alcohol level of.07 percent or higher at the time of the police stop. Considering the assumptions that the expert witnesses were using, rather than the actual 2 MRE 403 provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. -3-

10 evidence of the case, I cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in suppressing evidence of the blood alcohol tests as being too unreliable. I would affirm the circuit court s ruling that likewise affirmed the district court. /s/ Kathleen Jansen -4-

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 19, 2006 V No. 261228 Livingston Circuit Court JASON PAUL AMELL, LC No. 04-020876-AZ Defendant-Appellee.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 4, 2014 v No. 313482 Macomb Circuit Court HOWARD JAMAL SANDERS, LC No. 2012-000892-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 2005 v No. 254007 Wayne Circuit Court FREDDIE LATESE WOMACK, LC No. 03-005553-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

FOR PUBLICATION April 24, :05 a.m. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No Jackson Circuit Court. Defendant-Appellee.

FOR PUBLICATION April 24, :05 a.m. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No Jackson Circuit Court. Defendant-Appellee. S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 24, 2018 9:05 a.m. v No. 337003 Jackson Circuit Court GREGORY SCOTT

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 8, 2007 v No. 267567 Wayne Circuit Court DAMAINE GRIFFIN, LC No. 05-008537-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 3, 2002 v No. 234028 Wayne Circuit Court PAUL E. MCDANIEL, LC No. 00-000613 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Lenawee Circuit Court I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

v No Lenawee Circuit Court I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 9, 2018 v No. 337443 Lenawee Circuit Court JASON MICHAEL FLORES, LC No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 29, 2005 v No. 249780 Oakland Circuit Court TANYA LEE MARKOS, LC No. 2001-178820-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 11, 2010 v No. 289800 Oakland Circuit Court RANDOLPH VINCENT FAWKES, LC No. 2007-008662-AR Defendant-Appellee.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2008 v No. 277652 Wayne Circuit Court SHELLY ANDRE BROOKS, LC No. 06-010881-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2011 v No. 297994 Ingham Circuit Court FRANK DOUGLAS HENDERSON, LC No. 08-001406-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Livingston Circuit Court

v No Livingston Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 27, 2018 v No. 336685 Livingston Circuit Court JUSTIN MICHAEL BAILEY,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2012 v No. 301049 Emmet Circuit Court MICHAEL JAMES KRUSELL, LC No. 10-003236-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 7, 2012 v No. 302671 Kalkaska Circuit Court JAMES EDWARD SCHMIDT, LC No. 10-003224-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 9, 2015 v No. 320838 Wayne Circuit Court CHARLES STANLEY BALLY, LC No. 13-008334-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2009 v No. 288781 Wayne Circuit Court JEFFREY SCOTT BLOW, LC No. 07-015200-FH Defendant-Appellee.

More information

v No Oakland Circuit Court I. BASIC FACTS

v No Oakland Circuit Court I. BASIC FACTS S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 24, 2017 v No. 337933 Oakland Circuit Court NICHOLAS LOUIS STAPELS, LC

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 7, 2009 v No. 277505 Kent Circuit Court PATRICK LEWIS, LC No. 01-002471-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before:

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 6, 2007 v No. 263329 Wayne Circuit Court HOWARD D. SMITH, LC No. 02-008451 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2013 v No. 306765 Wayne Circuit Court GERALD PERRY DICKERSON, LC No. 10-012687-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2008 v No. 276504 Allegan Circuit Court DAVID ALLEN ROWE, II, LC No. 06-014843-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Oakland Circuit Court

v No Oakland Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 25, 2018 v No. 337657 Oakland Circuit Court JOSEPH JOHN LESNESKIE, LC

More information

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER People of MI v Timothy Matthew Parker Docket No. 335541 Michael J. Riordan Presiding Judge Amy Ronayne Krause LC No. 2016-001135-FH Brock A. Swartzle Judges The

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 16, 2003 v No. 240738 Oakland Circuit Court JOSE RAFAEL TORRES, LC No. 2001-181975-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS VALERIE RISSI, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 21, 2015 v No. 321691 Muskegon Circuit Court WILLIAM CURTIS and LC No. 11-48124-NI AUTO-OWNERS/HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 12, 2013 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION November 5, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 309555

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MILTON BARDEN, JR., Petitioner-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 14, 2001 v No. 221609 Wayne Circuit Court SECRETARY OF STATE, LC No. 99-907527-AL Respondent-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ELIZABETH KRUSHENA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 12, 2013 v No. 306366 Oakland Circuit Court ALI MESLEMANI, M.D. and A & G LC No. 2008-094674-NH AESTHETICS,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION December 27, 2012 9:15 a.m. v No. 308080 Clare Circuit Court KRIS EDWARD SITERLET, LC No. 10-004061-FH

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 26, 2013 v No. 310208 Van Buren Circuit Court BRIAN LEE SNYDER, LC No. 11-017954-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 22, 2010 v No. 291273 St. Clair Circuit Court MICHAEL ARTHUR JOYE, LC No. 08-001637-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 25, 2002 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION December 27, 2002 9:05 a.m. v No. 226394 Oakland Circuit Court

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 13, 2014 v Nos. 317245 and 319744 Wayne Circuit Court WILLIAM LARRY PRICE, LC Nos. 12-005923-FC

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 19, 2013 v No. 310647 Oakland Circuit Court STEVEN EDWIN WOODWARD, LC No. 2011-238688-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Wayne Circuit Court

v No Wayne Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 8, 2018 v No. 338208 Wayne Circuit Court TERRANCE STARKS, LC No. 16-008915-01-FH

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 4, 2015 v No. 321381 Bay Circuit Court ABDULAI BANGURAH, LC No. 13-010179-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Wayne Circuit Court

v No Wayne Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 19, 2018 v No. 339785 Wayne Circuit Court MATTHEW JEFFREY GORDON, LC No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 6, 2004 v No. 245608 Livingston Circuit Court JOEL ADAM KABANUK, LC No. 02-019027-AV Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 29, 2004 v No. 247259 Kalamazoo Circuit Court CARL ANTHONY PROKOPCHAK, LC No. 02-000420-AR Defendant-Appellee.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2012 v No. 279699 St. Clair Circuit Court FREDERICK JAMES MARDLIN, LC No. 07-000240-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Wayne Circuit Court

v No Wayne Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 31, 2017 v No. 330759 Wayne Circuit Court THABO MANGEDWA JONES, LC No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 18, 2002 v No. 237738 Wayne Circuit Court LAMAR ROBINSON, LC No. 99-005187 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 11, 2016 v No. 326232 Kent Circuit Court DANYELL DARSHIEK THOMAS, LC No. 14-000789-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY / THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 08-[redacted] SD Hon. Gary R. Holman [redacted], Defendant. PLAINTIFF S MOTION

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 27, 2005 v No. 255722 Wayne Circuit Court RICKY HAWTHORNE, LC No. 04-002083-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 15, 2015 v No. 317902 Genesee Circuit Court DOUGLAS PAUL GUFFEY, LC No. 12-031509-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2002 v No. 225562 Genesee Circuit Court PATRICK JAMES MCLEMORE, LC No. 99-004795-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 23, 2008 v No. 277901 Oakland Circuit Court JOSEPH JEROME SMITH, LC No. 2007-212716-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2006 v No. 263467 Oakland Circuit Court PHIL AL-MAKI, LC No. 2004-196017-FH Defendant-Appellee.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN KUBIAK and JANET KUBIAK, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 v No. 240936 LC No. 99-065813-CK HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Defendant-Appellant,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 27, 2017 v No. 331113 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LESTER JOSEPH DIXON, JR., LC No. 2015-001212-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Washtenaw Circuit Court SADE LATOYA-MARIE SALTERS, also known

v No Washtenaw Circuit Court SADE LATOYA-MARIE SALTERS, also known S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 28, 2017 v No. 334159 Washtenaw Circuit Court SADE LATOYA-MARIE SALTERS,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 17, 2011 v No. 296649 Shiawassee Circuit Court CHAD DOUGLAS RHINES, LC No. 09-008302-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No St. Clair Circuit Court

v No St. Clair Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 337354 St. Clair Circuit Court RICKY EDWARDS, LC No. 16-002145-FH

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 30, 2004 v No. 246345 Kalkaska Circuit Court IVAN LEE BECHTOL, LC No. 01-002162-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 16, 2001 v No. 217950 Wayne Circuit Court DONALD ARTHUR MARTIN, LC No. 98-009401 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 15, 2005 v No. 255719 Calhoun Circuit Court GLENN FRANK FOLDEN, LC No. 04-000291-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 11, 2003 v No. 244518 Wayne Circuit Court KEVIN GRIMES, LC No. 01-008789 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2005 v No. 263104 Oakland Circuit Court CHARLES ANDREW DORCHY, LC No. 98-160800-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 16, 2009 v No. 282429 Macomb Circuit Court DONALD E. FITZPATRICK, LC No. 2006-005414-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES BARTH, Personal Representative of the Estate of JOANNA BARTH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2005 v No. 262605 Ottawa Circuit Court GOAL

More information

v No Oakland Circuit Court

v No Oakland Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 5, 2017 v No. 333709 Oakland Circuit Court WAYNE DUANE JENKINS, LC No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2012 v No. 300966 Oakland Circuit Court FREDERICK LEE-IBARAJ RHIMES, LC No. 2010-231539 -

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2012 v No. 301700 Huron Circuit Court THOMAS LEE O NEIL, LC No. 10-004861-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 5, 2005 v No. 253084 Cheboygan Circuit Court KURT MICHAEL HADDEN, LC No. 03-002712-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 2, 2013 v No. 308945 Kent Circuit Court GREGORY MICHAEL MANN, LC No. 11-005642-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Oakland Circuit Court

v No Oakland Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 22, 2018 v No. 336268 Oakland Circuit Court JAMES PATRICK KELEL, JR.,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION March 22, 2005 9:05 a.m. v No. 250776 Muskegon Circuit Court DONALD JAMES WYRICK, LC No. 02-048013-FH

More information

v No Kent Circuit Court ON REMAND

v No Kent Circuit Court ON REMAND S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 2, 2018 v No. 321804 Kent Circuit Court ALENNA MARIE ROCAFORT, LC No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 25, 2011 v No. 297053 Wayne Circuit Court FERANDAL SHABAZZ REED, LC No. 91-002558-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee UNPUBLISHED August 23, 2011 v No. 296140 St. Joseph Circuit Court JOHN WALTER BENNETT, LC No. 09-15595-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ERMA L. MULLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 23, 2001 v No. 214096 Oakland Circuit Court EDUARD MULLER, LC No. 91-412634-DO Defendant-Appellant. Before: Collins,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2004 v No. 245057 Midland Circuit Court JACKIE LEE MACK, LC No. 02-001062-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 15, 2005 v No. 256560 Isabella Circuit Court STEPHEN DOUGLAS BANFIELD, LC No. 03-000907-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2010 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION March 9, 2010 9:10 a.m. v No. 289330 Eaton Circuit Court LINDA

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 3, 2005 v No. 250770 Grand Traverse Circuit Court BRIAN PAUL FERNSEMER, LC No. 03-009119-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 19, 2003 v No. 238556 Washtenaw Circuit Court GEORGIO JOSHUA MACK, LC No. 01-00093-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 5, 2014 v No. 313814 Wayne Circuit Court JOHN DAVID MARSHALL, LC No. 12-002077-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 24, 2005 v No. 252766 Wayne Circuit Court ASHLEY MARIE KUJIK, LC No. 03-009100-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 19, 2011 v No. 289692 Wayne Circuit Court JASON BLAKE AGNEW, LC No. 08-005690-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 2, 1999 v No. 202802 Oakland Circuit Court CARLTON E. BANKS, LC No. 96-145671 FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 16, 2015 v No. 318473 Bay Circuit Court MARK JAMES ELDRIDGE, LC No. 12-011030-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 22, 2016 9:05 a.m. v No. 327385 Wayne Circuit Court JOHN PHILLIP GUTHRIE III, LC No. 15-000986-AR

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2012 v No. 303721 Genesee Circuit Court JOSEPHUS ATCHISON, LC No. 10-027141-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2005 V No. 253449 Kalkaska Circuit Court EUGENE EDWARD ABRAMCZYK, LC No. 03-002323-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 16, 2009 v No. 282618 Oakland Circuit Court MAKRAM WADE HAMD, LC No. 2007-214212-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2015 v No. 321585 Kent Circuit Court JOHN CHRISTOPHER PLACENCIA, LC No. 12-008461-FH; 13-009315-FH

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHRISTOPHER HARWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 10, 2006 v No. 263500 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No. 04-433378-CK INSURANCE COMPANY,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2016 v No. 326645 Ingham Circuit Court KRISTOFFERSON TYRONE THOMAS, LC No. 14-000507-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 11, 2003 v No. 229085 Genesee Circuit Court MARK AARON GONZALEZ, LC No. 99-005131-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION January 4, 2007 9:05 a.m. v No. 259014 Oakland Circuit Court DWIGHT-STERLING DAVID

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SUSAN MARICLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 23, 2001 v No. 217533 Genesee Circuit Court DR. BRIAN SHAPIRO and LC No. 98-062684-NH GENERAL SURGEONS OF FLINT,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2005 v No. 257288 Wayne Circuit Court AZIZUL ISLAM, LC No. 00-002335 Defendant-Appellee.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 23, 2008 9:05 a.m. v No. 281202 Oakland Circuit Court JAMES LAWRENCE MULLEN, LC No. 2007-212984-FH

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 24, 2009 v No. 282098 Oakland Circuit Court JOHN ALLEN MIHELCICH, LC No. 2007-213588-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PAMELA PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 6, 2006 v No. 249737 Wayne Circuit Court FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DANIEL P. LC No. 01-134649-CL BENNETT, Defendants-Appellees.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DIANA JUCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 12, 2006 V No. 260350 Calhoun Circuit Court RAGHU ELLURU, M.D., and GREAT LAKES LC No. 02-004703-NH PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE

More information

v No Kent Circuit Court

v No Kent Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2017 v No. 333827 Kent Circuit Court JENNIFER MARIE HAMMERLUND, LC

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 13, 2006 v No. 260067 Wayne Circuit Court KATINA MARIE THORNTON, LC No. 04-005169-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information