People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 30 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 303236,303236 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOREN TROUEZE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Berrien Circuit Court
Before: SAWYER, P.J., and METER and DONOFRIO, JJ.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of extortion, MCL 750.213; delivery of a controlled substance less than 50 grams, second offense, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MCL 333.7413(2); unlawful imprisonment, MCL 750.349b; and aggravated assault, MCL 750.81a(1). The trial court sentenced defendant as an habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10, to concurrent prison terms of 150 to 360 months for the extortion conviction, 38 to 480 months for the delivery of a controlled substance conviction, 120 to 270 months for the false imprisonment conviction, and 365 days for the aggravated assault conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm defendant's convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of the order to remit prisoner funds.
Defendant argues that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Cline, 276 Mich App 634, 642; 741 NW2d 563 (2007). We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the prosecution proved the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Most of defendant's argument is an attempt to reargue the credibility of the witnesses. Defendant claims that the victim, Joshua Karamalegos, was not a credible witness for numerous reasons, including that he lied to the police. Defendant also claims that Victor Sawyer, a codefendant, was not credible because Sawyer received a plea agreement and that his own testimony, because it was supported by the testimony of two witnesses, was credible. The credibility of the witnesses was a question for the jury, People v Harrison, 283 Mich App 374, 378; 768 NW2d 98 (2009), and we will not interfere with the jury's role in determining thecredibility of the witnesses, People v Williams, 268 Mich App 416, 419; 707 NW2d 624 (2005). Accordingly, we reject defendant's attempts to reargue witness credibility.
Defendant claims that his convictions for extortion and unlawful imprisonment were not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no threat of harm against Joshua if he did not pay the $1,000, his drug debt, to defendant. The crime of extortion requires the malicious communication of a threat, made with the intent to extort money or to obtain a pecuniary advantage, to injure a person or a person's property. MCL 750.213; People v Fobb, 145 Mich App 786, 790; 378 NW2d 600 (1985). The elements of unlawful imprisonment, as relevant to the present case, include the restraint of a person to facilitate the commission of another offense. People v Railer, 288 Mich App 213, 217; 792 NW2d 776 (2010). Joshua testified that, after he became persistent that he could not get the money unless he went back to Niles, Vincent Wiggins, codefendant, hit Joshua in the head and that, at some time, defendant told Joshua that he was not leaving until he paid the money. Then, as instructed, during one of the telephone calls with his father, Themelis (Tim) Karamalegos, Joshua told Tim that Tim would not see him again if he did not get the money. Defendant did not release Joshua until Tim exchanged the money. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that a malicious threat was made to injure Joshua if $1,000 was not paid to defendant. Cline, 276 Mich App at 642.
Defendant also claims that his conviction for aggravated assault was not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no proof of a serious injury. The elements of aggravated assault include the infliction of serious or aggravated injury. MCL 750.81a(1). "A serious or aggravated injury is a physical injury that requires immediate medical treatment or that causes disfigurement, impairment of health, or impairment of a part of the body." CJI2d 17.6(4). Joshua testified that he blacked out each time Wiggins hit him. Joshua also testified that, when he learned he was being arrested after cocaine was found in his pants pocket, he refused a ride in an ambulance to the hospital and asked to be taken to jail. The jail nurse stated that Joshua had to go to the emergency room. The emergency room doctor testified that Joshua suffered a mild concussion and sustained multiple abrasions and contusions to his face. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Joshua suffered a serious or aggravated injury. Cline, 276 Mich App at 642.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request to file a notice of alibi on the second day of trial. We review a trial court's decision whether to permit a defendant to introduce alibi evidence when the defendant failed to comply with the notice-of-alibi statute, MCL 768.20(1), for an abuse of discretion. People v Travis, 443 Mich 668, 679-680; 505 NW2d 563 (1993). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).
A defendant, if he wants to present an alibi defense, is required to file notice of the alibi at least ten days before trial. MCL 768.20(1). Defendant did not request to file a notice of alibi until the second day of trial. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion indenying defendant's request to file a late notice of alibi. Travis, 443 Mich at 679-680. The late notice resulted in prejudice to the prosecutor. The prosecutor did not have time to have the alibi witnesses interviewed or investigated or to find rebuttal alibi witnesses. The trial court accepted defense counsel's assertion that he did not learn of a potential alibi defense until January 20, 2011, when he reviewed defendant's January 13, 2011, letter. Defense counsel had represented defendant since the preliminary examination in September 2010, and no reason was provided for defendant's late disclosure of the alibi witnesses. Further, defense counsel deemed it unwise to present an alibi defense. Not only was he concerned about the subornation of perjury, but he also did not believe that an alibi defense was a good strategic approach. Under these circumstances, the trial court's decision to deny defendant's request to file a late notice of alibi fell within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Unger, 278 Mich App at 217.1
Defendant focuses his argument on defense counsel's statement to the trial court that presenting the alibi witnesses raised an ethical dilemma regarding the subornation of perjury. According to defendant, defense counsel's statement was improper because counsel essentially told the trial court that he did not believe defendant. However, because defendant presents no legal authority in support of the claim that defense counsel made an improper statement, the argument is abandoned. See People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641; 588 NW2d 480 (1998). Regardless, the argument does not address whether the trial court, after hearing from defense counsel, defendant, and the prosecutor, abused its discretion in denying defendant's request to file a late notice of alibi.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We review a trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. People v Kevorkian, 248 Mich App 373, 410; 639 NW2d 291 (2001). However, the determination whether a defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of fact and constitutional law. People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 17; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). A trial court must first find the facts and then decide whether those facts constitute a violation of the defendant's right to effective assistance. People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). We review a trial court's findings of fact for clear error, but review de novo questions of constitutional law. Id.
"Effective assistance of counsel is presumed, and the defendant bears a heavy burden of proving otherwise." People v Noble, 238 Mich App 647, 661-662; 608 NW2d 123 (1999). To establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below objective standards of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different. People v Uphaus (On Remand), 278 Mich App 174, 185; 748 NW2d 899 (2008).
First, defendant claims that defense counsel was ineffective for not investigating his alibi defense, filing a notice of alibi, and calling the alibi witnesses at trial. Defendant relies on his and his mother's testimony at the Ginther2 hearing that counsel was told of the alibi witnesses before January 2011. However, the trial court did not believe defendant and his mother. Rather, it found defense counsel, and his version of defendant's assertion of the alibi defense, credible. It found that no alibi witness ever told defense counsel that defendant was with him or her on March 6 or 7, 2010, and that the alibi defense was not established until less than a week before trial. We must defer to the credibility determinations of the trial court, which had a superior opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. MCR 2.613(C); People v Sexton (After Remand), 461 Mich 746, 752; 609 NW2d 822 (2000). Defendant makes no argument that the trial court, after having found defense counsel credible,...
To continue reading
Request your trial