People v. Williams-Bey
| Docket Number | 362819 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROY LORENZO WILLIAMS-BEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 21-001710-01-FH
Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and JANSEN and HOOD, JJ.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant Roy Lorenzo Williams-Bey guilty of aggravated stalking, MCL 750.411i(2) and sentenced him as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to serve 2 to 10 years in prison. Williams-Bey now appeals as of right his conviction and sentence. We affirm his conviction but vacate his sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing.
This arises out Williams-Bey's repeated harassment of the victim, ST, including during, and in violation of, a personal protection order (PPO). Williams-Bey and ST had known each other for more than 10 years as of trial, were in an off-and-on relationship, and shared a minor child (a daughter) together. ST gave birth to their daughter in 2012. In March 2017, there was a custody dispute that, according to ST, "got pretty nasty in the end," though ST indicated that their relationship had "deteriorated" even before their daughter was born. On July 2, 2018, ST obtained a PPO against Williams-Bey because he refused to comply with a court order limiting his contact with ST. Though the order limited his contact with her to child exchanges at a police station, Williams-Bey would follow ST from the police station and appear uninvited at her residence and her mother's residence. ST testified that his behavior "[t]errified" her. The PPO against Williams-Bey was in effect from July 2, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
On the morning of December 12, 2018, between "dropping the kids off at school" and "going to work," ST went to a Dunkin' Donuts in Detroit, "not far" from her son's daycare. ST had her son with her inside the Dunkin' Donuts. While at the counter inside, ST received a phone call from a blocked number. She answered the call and knew "[i]mmediately" that it was Williams-Bey. He "breathed into the phone" and told ST "you can run but you can't hide. I'm always goin' be able to find you." ST looked outside and saw Williams-Bey's car (a black Mercedes) backed into a parking spot, allowing him to see into the Dunkin' Donuts. ST indicated that she saw Williams-Bey "[p]retty much during, simultaneously" with the phone call she received. ST thought Williams-Bey "might have tried to get [her] to [go] out to his car," but she told him to come inside. She was "a regular" at the Dunkin' Donuts and she wanted to have witnesses present for any interaction with Williams-Bey. He refused to go inside, however, stating, [1] ST called the police, but Williams-Bey left after his phone call with ST and before the police arrived. Seeing Williams-Bey at the Dunkin' Donuts made ST feel "[t]errified," "exhausted, "disbelief," "frustration," and "fear ...."
The court admitted the surveillance footage into evidence and the video was played in court. Williams-Bey denied that it was his vehicle shown in the video. He testified that although he owned a vehicle similar to the one in the video, he had gifted it to his son and was no longer driving it. He indicated he had purchased a different vehicle and that his son could not drive the vehicle because he was too young. According to Williams-Bey, the vehicle was parked at his home on the day of this incident.
Williams-Bey also sent text messages to ST over several months in 2018. These text messages ranged from derogatory to threatening in nature. Williams-Bey conceded that the text messages came from his phone number but denied that they were sent in 2018 with the intent to harass or intimidate ST. He instead insisted that the text messages related to the custody battle and were sent in 2017. ST testified that she made a police report about these text messages.
The trial court, in rendering its verdict, indicated it would not consider many of the text messages because they were sent before the PPO went into effect. It did, however, consider three text messages ST received during the period of the stalking allegations. These included two received in September 2018 and one received in October 2018, which, according to the trial court's recitation of the content of the text messages,[2] stated, respectively:
At the end of the third day of trial, the trial court found Williams-Bey guilty of aggravated stalking, concluding that the evidence "overwhelmingly support[ed]" ST's version of events. The court found that Williams-Bey sent the September 2018 and October 2018 text messages in violation of the PPO then in effect, and that he went to Dunkin' Donuts to harass or intimidate ST. The trial court also found that Williams-Bey's contacts with ST caused her to suffer emotional distress, and that his conduct would cause a reasonable person to feel intimidated, threatened, or harassed. It further found that Williams-Bey committed the stalking in violation of a restraining order of which he had actual notice.
Williams-Bey's presentence investigation report (PSIR) recommended a guidelines minimum range of 7 to 34 months. This was based on a total prior record variable (PRV) score of 45 points and a total offense variable (OV) score of 15 points, with OV 10 being the only variable scored. These scores placed Williams-Bey in PRV Level D and OV Level II.
At sentencing, ST gave her victim-impact statement describing the effect of Williams-Bey's conduct on her life and how she has adapted since his conviction, including the fear he used to "bully and intimidate" her and the fact that she was attending counseling as a result. The parties argued over the proper scores for OVs 4, 5, and 19. Over defense counsel's objections, the court assessed 10 points for OV 4, 15 points for OV 5, and 10 points for OV 19 (in addition to the 15 points for OV 10 recommended in the PSIR). This brought Williams-Bey's total OV score to 50 points, moving him to OV Level V and resulting in a guidelines minimum range of 14 to 43 months. The trial court sentenced Williams-Bey as a third-offense habitual offender to serve 2 to 10 years in prison for his aggravated-stalking conviction. This appeal followed.
Williams-Bey argues that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence establishing that he was involved in the incident at Dunkin' Donuts in December 2018 or that he sent text messages to ST when the PPO was in effect. We disagree.
We review de novo a challenge to whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction. People v Speed, 331 Mich.App. 328, 331; 952 N.W.2d 550 (2020). When determining in the context of a bench trial whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction, we "must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Kanaan, 278 Mich.App. 594, 618; 751 N.W.2d 57 (2008). In doing so, however, we "will not interfere with the trier of fact's role of determining the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses." Id. at 619. In a bench trial, "[f]actual findings are sufficient as long as it appears that the trial court was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law." People v Legg, 197 Mich.App. 131, 134; 494 N.W.2d 797 (1992).
"Aggravated stalking consists of the crime of stalking . . . and the presence of an aggravating circumstance ...." People v Threatt, 254 Mich.App. 504, 505; 657 N.W.2d 819 (2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted). MCL 750.411i(2) governs aggravated stalking and provides, in relevant part:
MCL 750.411i(1)(e) defines "stalking" as "a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested." A "[c]ourse of conduct" is "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more noncontinuous...
To continue reading
Request your trial