People v. Brown

Decision Date13 January 1989
Docket NumberDocket No. 105863
Citation433 N.W.2d 404,173 Mich.App. 202
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Basil W. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Donald E. Martin, Pros. Atty., and Paula M. Zera, Chief Criminal Div., for the People.

Zolton A. Ferency, East Lansing, for defendant-appellant.

Before CYNAR, P.J., and SHEPHERD and DOCTOROFF, JJ.

CYNAR, Presiding Judge.

On November 30, 1987, defendant pled guilty to one count of delivery of cocaine under fifty grams, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv), and one count of delivery of marijuana, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(2)(c); M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(2)(c). The sentence guideline range for delivery of cocaine was a minimum of six to twelve months and the guideline range for delivery of marijuana was a minimum of zero to six months. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of five years probation, with the first six months to be served in the county jail, for each offense. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.

Defendant was originally charged with two counts of delivery of cocaine, two counts of delivery of marijuana, one count of possession of cocaine, and one count of possession of marijuana. After the preliminary examination, defendant was bound over for trial. In circuit court, defendant moved to quash the information, claiming that he had been entrapped and that there was insufficient evidence of delivery of cocaine and marijuana. On June 4, 1986, his motion was denied. On August 15, 1986 defendant's application for leave to appeal was denied by this Court. On June 10, 1986, defendant filed a motion in the circuit court for reconsideration of the June 4, 1986, order. A hearing was held on September 25, 1986, on the motion for rehearing. On October 20, 1986, an opinion and order were entered in the circuit court denying the motion for reconsideration and holding that defendant had not been entrapped. On December 16, 1986, this Court denied defendant's application for leave and for a stay of proceedings. Defendant then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. While that application in the Supreme Court was pending, defendant filed a further motion in the circuit court for a stay of proceedings and for a ruling that a search warrant was involved. On January 12, 1987, the circuit court denied those motions. On January 14, 1987, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. 428 Mich. 851 (1987). On January 15, 1987, this Court stayed the proceedings. On September 21, 1987, this Court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the entrapment and delivery issues. People v. Brown, 163 Mich.App. 273, 413 N.W.2d 766 (1987). On November 27, 1987, the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. 429 Mich. 877, 415 N.W.2d 864 (1987). On November 30, 1987, defendant pled guilty to one count of delivery of cocaine under fifty grams and one count of delivery of marijuana. In exchange for defendant's pleas, the remaining information counts were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced on January 4, 1988. Defendant now appeals as of right raising seven issues.

The facts of this case are the same as the facts set forth in the concurring opinion of Judge Beasley in People v. Brown, supra. This case arose when Nancy Kalder, a special agent for the Organized Crime Unit of the Attorney General's Office, was told by an unidentified female informant that a prostitute by the name of Katherine Roberts had received cocaine and marijuana from defendant.

On October 15, 1985, Kalder, the informant, and Katherine Roberts attended an evening meeting at a Lansing restaurant. At that time, an understanding was reached that Roberts would go to defendant's apartment, as she normally had in the past, and would receive whatever narcotics defendant had available. The narcotics would then be brought back to Kalder as a sample and for possible use as evidence. The understanding was that if Roberts did her part of the work, she would be furnished with a place to stay, she would be given some money, and something would be done to try to get her off drugs and into a rehabilitation program. It was also understood that the police would monitor Roberts' phone calls to defendant.

At the December 9, 1985, preliminary examination, Roberts testified that she had been addicted to heroin since 1983. She stated that she had used cocaine since 1979, and also used dilaudids, but was addicted to neither. She testified that she had first earned money as a prostitute in 1980. She said that she had known defendant for about four years and that she met defendant through another prostitute. Roberts stated that she had been to defendant's apartment fifty to one hundred times as a prostitute. She said that defendant always "shared" his drugs with her. Roberts testified that she and defendant exchanged sex for drugs or cash.

At the time of her first meeting with special agent Kalder on October 15, 1985, Roberts said she had not been in contact with defendant for thirty days. Presumably, the reason for this was that she had received $130 from defendant for the purpose of buying cocaine for him and had never done so or accounted to him for the money. However, there was also testimony that during their four-year relationship there had been other occasions when there were breaks in their meetings for as long as thirty days. Nevertheless, Kalder gave $50 to Roberts to pay to defendant upon the $130 obligation she had to him. Kalder thought that this would ensure Roberts' entry into defendant's apartment. Her feeling was that if she did not do so, defendant might not be willing to resume the sexual relationship with Roberts and, thus, might not permit Roberts to enter his apartment.

Roberts also testified that defendant had not called her within the last six months, apparently because defendant no longer had a phone number through which he could reach her. Thus, during that period, the only contacts that Roberts had with defendant were initiated by her.

The record indicates that Roberts had three previous convictions for soliciting and, at the time of the preliminary examination, there was a pending soliciting case under the jurisdiction of the Lansing City Attorney's office.

Roberts testified that, when they first met, defendant told her never to come to his apartment without calling first. Consequently, she always called defendant before going to his apartment, except for a couple of times when she was living with her ex-husband, and defendant called her. Otherwise, all of the telephone calls between Roberts and defendant were initiated by her. She said that often defendant would tell her to call back later because he was busy or tired. After her meeting with special agent Kalder, Roberts said she made the telephone calls to defendant to set up meetings with him in the same way she had for the preceding four years. When Roberts told Kalder that she often gave defendant sex in exchange for drugs, Kalder told Roberts to try to "avoid it." Nevertheless, during her visits to defendant, which were suggested and monitored by the investigators, Roberts did have oral sex with defendant.

The investigators kept their share of the bargain by enrolling Roberts in a rehabilitation program and finding a place for her to stay. Also, they paid for a motel room for her, paid various food, clothing, and medical expenses, and their personnel drove her to a methadone clinic every day.

On October 17, 1985, special agent Kalder had Roberts call defendant and tell him that she had $50 to give him for the money that she had taken from him and had her offer to come to defendant's apartment. Before Roberts went to defendant's apartment, she was strip searched by the investigator to make sure that no drugs were taken into defendant's apartment. Roberts was also strip searched again on her return to ensure the investigators that she had not taken any drugs out of defendant's apartment other than those that she handed over to Kalder. Roberts testified that when she entered defendant's apartment, he asked her if she wanted to roll them a joint and that the marijuana was in defendant's bedroom in a dish. Roberts rolled the joint and both of them smoked it. She and defendant also used some cocaine that defendant had in his apartment. She injected the cocaine with a syringe and went into the bathroom to do so because defendant "didn't like to watch anybody stick a needle in their arm in front of him." When she left, defendant gave her a small bud of marijuana to take with her to smoke at home. Roberts gave that marijuana to Kalder.

Kalder testified that on October 28, 1985, she and Roberts went to defendant's apartment. On that occasion, Roberts was permitted to enter, but not Kalder.

Another visit to defendant's apartment was arranged for October 29, 1985. Roberts was again strip searched before entering defendant's apartment. On that occasion, defendant asked her if she wanted some cocaine and she agreed. Defendant gave her cocaine to take into the bathroom to inject and she injected some of the cocaine but put the rest into her purse. Roberts stated that she did not steal the cocaine and that defendant had given it to her.

An additional trip to defendant's apartment was arranged for November 7, 1985. As before, Roberts was strip searched before entering the apartment. Roberts stated that defendant was smoking when she arrived and asked her if she wanted to roll them a joint. She rolled a joint out of some marijuana that was on defendant's dresser and they both smoked it. She testified that she and defendant also used some cocaine on that November 7, 1985, visit. She said that defendant had a large package of cocaine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re AMB
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • January 25, 2002
    ...the courtroom violated his rights to due process or access to the courts as a member of the public). 113. See People v. Brown, 173 Mich.App. 202, 213-214, 433 N.W.2d 404 (1988), rev'd on other grounds sub nom People v. Juillet, 439 Mich. 34, 475 N.W.2d 786 (1991) (unavailing due process and......
  • People v. Juillet
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1991
    ...Sec. 14.15(7401)(1), (2)(a)(iv), Brown filed an appeal of right. The Court of Appeals again reviewed his conviction, 173 Mich.App. 202, 433 N.W.2d 404 (1988) (Brown II), finding that it was bound by the law of the case doctrine and thereby affirming the prior panel's findings on the issue o......
  • Poirier v. Grand Blanc Tp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • January 21, 1992
    ...materially the same. Manistee v. Manistee Firefighters Ass'n, 174 Mich.App. 118, 125, 435 N.W.2d 778 (1989); People v. Brown, 173 Mich.App. 202, 209, 433 N.W.2d 404 (1988). "This doctrine applies only to those questions determined by an appellate court's prior decision and to those question......
  • People v. Douglas, Docket No. 127102
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • November 4, 1991
    ...by this Court and the parties, and the issue now before us had not been raised for a legal determination. See People v. Brown, 173 Mich.App. 202, 209-210, 433 N.W.2d 404 (1988), lv. gtd., 436 Mich. 880, 461 N.W.2d 485 (1990). Similarly, defendant's reliance on People v. Phelon, 173 Mich.App......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT