Opinion
No. 348596
05-14-2020
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD RANDOLPH TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 13-000546-01-FC Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and SERVITTO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of one count of first-degree (felony) murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b); two counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; and one count of felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction, 60 to 100 years' imprisonment for each armed robbery conviction, and two years' imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. We affirm.
Although defendant submitted a timely request for the appointment of appellate counsel following his convictions and the imposition of sentence, the trial court initially deemed his request untimely. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to restore defendant's right to appeal, which the trial court granted on March 27, 2019. --------
Defendant's convictions stem from a January 4, 2013 incident in which he approached two teenage boys, Demetri Green and Cazaraza Archer, while they were walking down the street and while armed with a gun, and ordered the boys to lie on the ground. Green complied, but Archer put down his coat and then began to run. Defendant shot at Archer several times as he ran. When Archer reached a safer distance, he turned around and saw defendant shoot Green in the head. Green died as a result.
On appeal, defendant argues that because there was insufficient evidence to convict him of armed robbery and that the offense could thus not serve as the predicate felony to support a felony murder conviction, the trial court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict. We disagree.
This Court reviews de novo a defendant's challenge to a conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence. People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 452; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). In reviewing such a challenge, this Court considers the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
Circumstantial evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom can constitute sufficient proof of the elements of a crime. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). "All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the prosecution and we will not interfere with the jury's determinations regarding the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses." People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 222; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). The same standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence applies to a motion for a direct verdict; however, when reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion for a directed verdict, only the evidence presented up to the time the motion is made is considered. People v Schultz, 246 Mich App 695, 702; 635 NW2d 491 (2001).
"The elements of armed robbery are: (1) an assault and (2) a felonious taking of property from the victim's presence or person (3) while the defendant is armed with a weapon." People v Smith, 478 Mich 292, 319; 733 NW2d 351 (2007) (citation omitted). Armed robbery, a specific-intent crime, requires a showing that the defendant intended to deprive the victim permanently of possession of the property. People v Parker, 230 Mich App 337, 344; 584 NW2d 336 (1998). "[B]ecause it can be difficult to prove a defendant's state of mind on issues such as knowledge and intent, minimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant's state of mind, which can be inferred from all the evidence presented." People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622; 751 NW2d 57 (2008) (citations omitted).
At trial, Archer testified that as defendant approached him and Green, he brandished an assault rifle and stated "Y'all don't want to die for this s--t. Get the f--k down." Archer testified that he took off his leather jacket and laid it on the ground and that Green laid down on the ground. According to police testimony, the jacket and various monetary bills were found on the ground near Green's body. In addition, defendant's aunt testified that defendant admitted to her that he and another person were robbing two males and that he shot one of them in the head when that person began "running his mouth."
Defendant argues that the words used during the incident do not indicate an attempt to permanently deprive Green and Archer of any property such that the prosecution failed to establish the specific intent necessary to convict him of armed robbery. In support of this position, defendant relies on People v Barnes, 44 Mich App 488, 492; 205 NW2d 591 (1973). In that case, the defendant held a razor against a victim's neck and stated "Old man, this is it." Id. at 491. Considering the victim's testimony that the defendant did not ask for or obtain any money from him, this Court found that the defendant's words could have signaled a number of intents, and the specific words used, without more, did not establish that the defendant intended to rob the victim. Id. at 492.
Here, in contrast, defendant made a clear statement showing his intent to rob Archer and the victim. Defendant told Green and Archer to lay down and that they did not want to "die for this s--t." This indicates that there was an object or objects at issue ("this s--t") that Green and Archer would die over if they did not comply with defendant's orders. When defendant spoke, Archer produced his leather coat and laid it on the ground and Green produced money. There is no evidence that defendant questioned why they did so. Indeed, there would be no reason for Green and Archer to provide the property had they not understood that defendant meant to rob them and there was no evidence that there was any reason for defendant to order them to lie down other than to take their belongings. And, while defendant takes issue with his aunt's testimony because she could not remember what defendant said word-for-word, the lack of an exact recollection does not diminish the fact that she unequivocally testified that defendant told her he was robbing Archer and Green and killed Green during the attempted robbery.
Defendant's statements were clearly interpreted by the jury as meaning that Archer and Green should not die trying to retain their property, and that giving up their property was better than dying. The jury could reasonably infer that defendant intended to steal from Archer and Green, at gunpoint, given not only his words, but also the fact that Archer took off his leather jacket and laid it down before fleeing and Green had taken money out and laid it down as well. The jury, as the trier of fact, is to determine what inferences may be drawn from the evidence and what weight to give those inferences, and is allowed to use their common sense when drawing inferences from the evidence. People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). Because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to convict defendant of armed robbery, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict on those charges.
The above being true, there was also sufficient evidence to convict defendant of first-degree felony murder. Notably, defendant's only challenge to this conviction rests upon the allegedly insufficient evidence to find that the predicate offense of armed robbery was established. This Court finding that armed robbery was established by sufficient evidence, this claim fails.
Moreover, sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder. The elements of first-degree felony murder are: "(1) the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result [i.e., malice], (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies specifically enumerated in" MCL 750.316(1)(b). Smith, 478 Mich at 318-319 (citation omitted).
There is no dispute that Green was killed. The first element of felony murder has thus been established. It is also undisputed that Green was killed by a single gunshot wound to the head. The intent to kill (malice) may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 759; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Thus, the second element of felony murder has been established. As this Court found above, there was sufficient evidence under which to convict defendant of armed robbery. Robbery is one of the felonies specifically enumerated in MCL 750.316(1)(b). As a result, all of the elements of felony murder have been shown by the presentation of sufficient evidence. Defendant was therefore not entitled to a directed verdict in his favor on this charge.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto