|
No. 135271
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Janice A. Kabodian |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Goldsmith, M.) |
|
|
| Carletus Lashawn Williams, |
|
James Daniel Shanahan |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
Carletus Lashawn Williams was charged with possession with intent to deliver between 50 and 450 grams of cocaine, plus related weapons offenses, based on cocaine found in an Auburn Hills motel room Williams rented in November 2004. Williams was later also charged with possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine and related weapons offenses, based on cocaine found in his presence in a Pontiac house on February 2, 2005. Over Williams’ objection, the trial court consolidated the two cases for trial before a single jury. The jury acquitted Williams of a marijuana possession count in one of the cases, but otherwise convicted him as charged. Williams appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error when it consolidated the cases for trial. At the relevant time, Michigan Court Rule 6.120(B) stated that a court “must sever unrelated offenses for separate trials,” and defined “related” offenses to be offenses based on the same conduct or “a series of connected acts or acts constituting part of a single scheme or plan.” Williams argued that, under MCR 6.120(B), the offenses here were unrelated; hence, he was entitled to separate trials. The prosecutor contended that the cases were related, but that even if they were not, any error was harmless. The Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecutor’s reasoning and affirmed Williams’ convictions in an unpublished per curiam opinion. “The evidence . . . indicated that both of defendant’s offenses were connected parts of an ongoing scheme or plan to sell drugs,” the panel stated. “When offenses are part of a single scheme or plan, joinder is permitted ‘even if considerable time passes between them.’ [quoting People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141 (1977)].” Williams appeals.
Top of Page
|
