People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 29 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 10881,1 |
| Citation | 193 N.W.2d 393,36 Mich.App. 164 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
M. John Shamo, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Thomas R. Lewis, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and McGREGOR and QUINN, JJ.
The defendant was convicted after a bench trial of possessing a motor vehicle known to be stolen, M.C.L.A. § 257.254 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 9.1954), and unlawfully driving away the automobile of another, M.C.L.A. § 750.413 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.645). He was sentenced to a term of to 10 years in prison on the first count and 4 to 5 years on the second count, to run concurrently.
The defendant's reliance on People v. Morton (1970), 384 Mich. 38, 179 N.W.2d 379, is sound. The people concede the case is controlling, that there was no evidence of intent to transfer title, and that the conviction of possession of a motor vehicle known to be stolen should be reversed.
There was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction of unlawfully driving away the automobile of another. Intent to steal is not an element of the offense. People v. Stanley (1957), 349 Mich. 362, 84 N.W.2d 787; People v. Limon (1966), 4 Mich.App. 440, 145 N.W.2d 287.
The defendant's conviction on the first count is reversed. The motion to affirm the defendant's conviction on the second count is granted. Resentencing is not required. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landon v. Titan Ins. Co.
...See Hendricks, supra at 71, 503 N.W.2d 689; People v. Murph, 185 Mich.App. 476, 481, 463 N.W.2d 156 (1990); People v. Davis, 36 Mich.App. 164, 165, 193 N.W.2d 393 (1971). While the offense requires the specific intent to take possession of the vehicle unlawfully, it does not require an inte......
-
People v. Goodchild
...therefore not larceny. People v. Stanley, supra. Also see, People v. Lerma, 66 Mich.App. 566, 239 N.W.2d 424 (1976); People v. Davis, 36 Mich.App. 164, 193 N.W.2d 393 (1971). Granting the district court erred in determining that unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle equals larceny for the......
-
Allen v. State Farm, Docket No. 253015.
...to take or drive the vehicle away but not to steal the vehicle." Mester, supra at 88, 596 N.W.2d 205, citing People v. Davis, 36 Mich.App. 164, 165, 193 N.W.2d 393 (1971). In other words, the offense requires the "specific intent to take possession of the vehicle unlawfully, . . . and punis......
-
People v. Lerma
...N.W.2d 130 (1974). 3 The People, relying primarily on People v. Stanley, 349 Mich. 362, 84 N.W.2d 787 (1957), and People v. Davis, 36 Mich.App. 164, 193 N.W.2d 393 (1971), argue that the 'joyriding' statute is not a specific intent crime, but rather, a general intent crime. However, these c......