429 N.W.2d 649 (Mich.App. 1988), 97724, People v. Williams
|Docket Nº:||Docket No. 97724.|
|Citation:||429 N.W.2d 649, 171 Mich.App. 234|
|Opinion Judge:||Before HOODand JH GILLIS and BREIGHNER, JJ|
|Party Name:||PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Allen WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||[171 Mich.App. 235] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief, Criminal Div., and Jeffrey Caminsky, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the people. Suzanne Carol Schuelke, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.|
|Judge Panel:||Before HOOD, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and BREIGHNER, [*] JJ.|
|Case Date:||September 07, 1988|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Michigan|
Submitted March 3, 1988.
Released for Publication Oct. 12, 1988.
J.H. GILLIS, Judge.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2). Defendant was sentenced to concurrent mandatory life sentences for the murders to be served consecutively to his mandatory two-year prison sentence for felony-firearm. Defendant moved for a new trial, claiming that one of the two felony-firearm convictions which appeared on his judgment of sentence should be struck, that the trial court did not make specific findings of fact and that defense counsel [171 Mich.App. 236] was ineffective because he failed to convey a plea bargain offer to defendant. The trial court granted defendant's motion to strike one
felony-firearm conviction but otherwise denied defendant's motion. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
In this case, Van Robin Hooper and Charles David Stanley were killed in Hooper's Volvo. Hooper, seated in the driver's seat, was shot four times in the head (i.e., once in the ear, chin, forehead and right side of the head) and once in the neck. All the shots travelled from right to left. Two of the shots were close range (i.e., less than eighteen inches). Stanley, seated in the passenger seat behind Hooper, was shot eight times, four times in the head (once in the ear, chin, temple and eye) and once in each hand, his chest and back. One shot was at close range and two of the wounds may have been reentry wounds. The shots again travelled from right to left. Twelve nine-millimeter casings were found at the scene.
James Scamp, who lived on the road where the bodies were discovered, testified that at approximately 1:10 a.m. on April 6, 1985, he heard four or five back-firing sounds. He then heard a roaring car, gunning its engine. Hooper's Volvo had its rear flashers on, but the other car on the street did not have its lights on. The street was a dead-end street and Hooper's Volvo was facing in the direction of the dead end. Scamp saw that the other car was an older dark-colored two-door Grand Torino with a scoop hood. Scamp observed a person slowly jogging from the passenger side of the Volvo to the passenger side of the Grand Torino. The person had shoulder-length light brown hair and was wearing a thin dark-colored jacket and blue jeans. Scamp believed the person was a female because of the hair, the way the body was proportioned and the jog. Because Scamp saw a white reflection on [171 Mich.App. 237] the wet pavement, he believed that the person was wearing white-bottomed oxfords or tennis shoes. That person got in the passenger side of the Torino and the Torino drove off without its lights on. Once the Torino reached the main street, its lights came on. The bodies were discovered the next day and, when the police came to Scamp's door, he told them what he had seen.
Defendant first claims that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress an April 10, 1985, statement he gave to the police. Defendant claims that, because he was the focus of the police investigation or was in custody when he gave the statement, he was entitled to be informed of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Recently, our Supreme Court rejected the focus test and adopted the custody test. People v. Hill, 429 Mich. 382, 415 N.W.2d 193 (1987). To determine whether the defendant was in custody at the time of the interrogation, the totality of circumstances must be examined. People v. Marbury, 151 Mich.App. 159, 162, 390 N.W.2d 659 (1986). The key question is whether the defendant could have reasonably believed that he was not free to leave. Hill, supra, 429 Mich. at p. 399, 415 N.W.2d 193; Marbury, supra, 151 Mich.App. at p. 162, 390 N.W.2d 659. The trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of a statement will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. We note...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP