Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

October 1, 2013

Flint Man Suspected of 3 Armed Robberies in Ypsilanti Arrested by Ann Arbor Police

Duane Lee, a 25-year-old Flint resident, was recently arrested in connection with three armed robberies which have occurred in Ypsilanti since September 18. Police had suspected Lee was responsible for the robberies for approximately one week before he was located after being recognized by an Ann Arbor citizen who called police.

Lee is reportedly a gang member and ex-con, according to a news article at Mlive.com. which indicates he is a member of the Gangster Disciples 74. Police called Lee “armed and dangerous,” although there were no injuries reported in the three Ypsilanti robberies.

Lee allegedly robbed a woman on September 18 as she was walking, pointing a black semi-automatic handgun at her and demanding her purse. Four days later, he allegedly robbed a victim who passed by a group of men while walking toward a store near campus; one of the men in the group, purported to be Lee, approached the victim requesting a lighter, then grabbing the victim and demanding his wallet while brandishing the handgun. Lee allegedly tried to punch the victim when he refused Lee’s request, however the victim broke away and went to get something out of his pocket. Lee then ran from the scene. The third incident occurred the next day when an EMU employee was walking and was passed by a man who then turned back toward him and pulled out a gun. He was robbed of his money and cellphone.

As of Monday, there was no mention of whether Lee had been charged in the three armed robberies. News articles indicated that the suspect was still in custody, and that Detective Sgt. Tom Eberts had not had an opportunity to question Lee in connection with the robberies.

Individuals who are convicted on charges of armed robbery will face serious penalties, possibly life in prison depending on the circumstances. Michigan Penal Code 750.530 states that any person who uses violence, fear, or force against another person while stealing money or attempting to commit larceny may be convicted of a felony offense resulting in punishment of up to 15 years in prison. However, when a person or establishment’s property or money is stolen and a dangerous weapon or any article insinuating the presence of a weapon used, the penalties may include up to life in prison.

October 1, 2013

Saginaw Man’s Murder and Other Convictions Restored by Michigan Supreme Court

by Scott Grabel

In June of 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed convictions on eight felony charges against Charles H. Arthur, who was convicted on numerous charges including robbery and murder stemming from incidents going back to 2002.

In 2010, Arthur was convicted of carjacking, kidnapping, robbing, shooting, and extorting a man in 2002; this was the second time he was convicted on the charges. Arthur claimed at that time that he would win on appeal, and be a “free man.” According to a news article at Mlive.com, Arthur has an extensive criminal background and is nicknamed “Frank Nitty” after a 1920s era mobster.

Ultimately, Arthur wanted to represent himself at trial regarding the 2002 incident, however felt that because he had to remain shackled, would not be effective before the jury. Chief Circuit Judge Robert L. Kaczmarek ordered Arthur to remain shackled at the ankles for the duration of his trial, an order the Michigan Court of Appeals determined denied the defendant of his right to self-representation. Therefore, Jonathon Huffman, Arthur’s court-appointed lawyer, represented him during the trial because with the shackles, he would not be able to present evidence, use a podium, or move about the courtroom without jurors seeing him in shackles.

In a 2-1 decision, appellate judges Michael J. Talbot and Donald S. Owens decided that the judge’s decision to have Arthur remain shackles was without justification, considering he only briefly cited a “security issue.” They also determined that the defendant’s being forced to wear them in the presence of the jury violated his due process right to a fair trial.

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated Arthur’s convictions, ruling that while Arthur did have a right to represent himself at trial, because he is considered violent, the right is not unfettered.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know all too well the complexities of these types of issues. Without a skilled attorney who is highly experienced in the appeals process, the results for the defendant often are not favorable.

September 30, 2013

Two Gobles Residents Arrested in Connection with Meth Lab

by Scott Grabel

On Friday September 27, two residents of Goble were arrested in connection with a suspected meth lab. Dannie Ray Field, 50, and Tracy Anne Markillie, 49, were arrested in Pine Grove Township by Van Buren County sheriff’s deputies according to a press release issued by the Sheriff’s Office.

Following the execution of a search warrant on a home located in the 16000 block of 27th Street, deputies discovered paraphernalia used for smoking meth, what was called a “sizeable amount” of finished methamphetamine, and components used in manufacturing of the drug. The press release also indicated that deputies found an active one pot meth lab and other materials used in making meth in a closet of the suspects’ bedroom.

Field and Markillie were both charged with maintaining a drug house, operating a meth lab, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Both were also arrested for outstanding traffic violations, warrant driving on suspended license. The two remained in custody at the Van Buren County Jail Friday, pending arraignment on the charges.

Michigan meth manufacturing defense attorneys know the criminal penalties the two individuals arrested face if convicted. Considered a Schedule II drug, methamphetamine manufacturing is punished very harshly in the state of Michigan. Those who are found guilty will face penalties which include fines of up to $25,000 and up to 20 years in prison. In fact, the consequences may be even more serious depending on certain factors, including the nature of the offense committed and amount of methamphetamine involved. Penalties may also be enhanced if it is determined that those accused were in possession of firearms, or if the alleged crime occurred within close proximity of a church, park, school, or other location.

September 30, 2013

Woman, Three Men Face Charges in Connection with Brutal Assault of Man at Detroit Gas Station

by Scott Grabel

On September 22, a 64-year-old man was allegedly brutally attacked by three men and a woman in the BP gas station in Detroit located near Interstate 75 at 800 E. Seven Mile. The attack, which was caught on surveillance cameras, showed the victim being savagely attacked as he was dragged, kicked, jumped on, and beaten according to a news article at Mlive.com. Another person who was with the man reportedly fled on foot after being knocked down by the assailants.

The victim was taken to an area hospital with what were reported to be non life-threatening injuries. The three men allegedly attacked the man, while the woman waited in a “get-away” car. Those charged in the attack include 28-year-old Dominique Neal, two counts of accessory after the fact to assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felonious assault; the three men were all charged with two counts each of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and include 32-year-old Donrico Hawkins, 31-year-old Cortez Hawkins, and 32-year-old Juan Hawkins. Cortez and Juan Hawkins also face one count each of felonious assault.

The victim and his friend were crossing the parking lot at the BP station when they were approached by a man wearing an athletic jersey, who proceeded to punch the older gentlemen before two of his accomplices become involved in the brawl. Dominique Neal, driver of the get-away car, stood by and nonchalantly puts fuel in her car, seemingly paying no attention to the altercation, then drives the vehicle away at approximately the same time the assailants are leaving.

The 64-year-old victim was said to be bleeding from his head and mouth when medics arrived on the scene. While no motive is known for the attack, police believe it was a random incident.

Individuals who are convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm will face serious and life-changing consequences. Potential penalties include fines of up to $5,000, up to 10 years in prison, and possibly restitution. In cases where it can be proven that the defendant intended to commit murder, criminal penalties are even more severe.

September 27, 2013

As a Habitual Alcohol Offender, When are You Eligible for Driver’s License Restoration in Michigan?

by Scott Grabel

Many people are what are known as “habitual offenders,” that is they have violated the law on two or more occasions, such as in the case of someone who has been convicted two or more times for driving under the influence. In Michigan, someone who is convicted on a second DUI within 7 years of the first will have his or her license revoked, which is more serious than a suspension.

Unfortunately, many people don’t give much thought to the serious impact to their lives until their driver’s license has been revoked. You may believe that you can obtain a restricted license to be used only to get to and from work, or for emergency purposes. This is absolutely not true, and there is no way around it. It makes no difference who you know, or if you have a friend with a friend who “knows somebody.” Until the one-year revocation period has passed, you will not be eligible to have your driver’s license restored. Even then, it is not guaranteed that the DAAD will approve reinstatement of your license.

For a third or subsequent DUI within a 10 year time period, your driver’s license will be revoked for a period of five years. This means that during this 5-year term, you cannot legally operate a motor vehicle – period. Having your driver’s license revoked for multiple DUI’s is certainly a hardship, but one you will have to live with until the revocation period passes and you can file a restoration appeal with the DAAD (Driver Assessment and Appeal Division) of the Michigan Secretary of State.

That being said, when the time comes that you are eligible to file for restoration, it is critical you obtain the legal guidance and support of a skilled and experienced Michigan drivers license restoration attorney. The process of having your license reinstated is one that is complex, to put it bluntly. You may be eligible to file an appeal, but are you ready? In this context, ready means “sober.” You must be in a position to prove unequivocally that you are sober, and will remain that way. This requires substantial documentation, recommendation letters from family, a substance abuse evaluation, 10-panel drug screen, and effective, convincing testimony.

September 27, 2013

Michigan Criminal Law – What is an Appeal?

by Scott Grabel

In the state of Michigan, there are some instances in which a defendant who loses at trial may overturn the lower court’s ruling by petitioning to a higher court. This is true of criminal cases as well; a conviction may be appealed, or the sentencing portion only when a judge sentences an individual to punishment that seems far out of line in accordance with the state sentencing guidelines.

When can you file an appeal? Only after completion of a trial, after the final judgment is reached. Defendants may not file an appeal at any stage of the criminal process, due to the fact that the court system would become highly inefficient as proceedings and hearings could not move forth due to waiting for the appeals court’s decision .

Can you appeal a conviction or sentencing on the basis you are not pleased with the outcome? No. In order to appeal a conviction or sentencing, an error of law must exist or your constitutional rights must have been violated. Additionally, an appeal does not constitute a new trial. An appeal is not similar to trial, as there are no witnesses called or new details presented; the transcript and evidence presented at the original trial will be reviewed by the appellate court, who will decide whether procedural errors existed or the law was inappropriately applied.

Are most appeals successful? The short answer is no. When serious errors are made at trial, the appeals court may overturn a verdict or remand a case back to court for re-sentencing. Trial courts have substantial leeway; therefore, when appealing to the Michigan Court of Appeals, it is vital the defendant and his/her attorney have substantial proof that any error in the law made at trial was serious, and not a harmless minor mistake. Perhaps most important of all in a successful appeal is having an attorney who is highly skilled and experienced in appellate matters to review the defendant’s case, a lawyer who is thoroughly familiar with what constitutes a serious error at trial.

September 26, 2013

Wyoming Teens Face Long Prison Terms if Convicted of Armed Home Invasion

by Scott Grabel

In the early morning hours of September 15, 17-year-old Ricardo Carbajal-Sosa and 18-year-old Jeffrey Rivera allegedly broke into a home on McKee Avenue SW. Both teens waived their probable cause hearings in Wyoming District Court. Both of the defendants are charged with two counts of home invasion and felony use of a firearm; because they waived probable cause hearings, the cases will not move forward to felony court where they will be tried on the charges.

Police claim the two teens entered the home forcibly and had begun stealing the homeowner’s property when it dawned on them that 911 had been called; they then fled the scene. Wyoming police also said in a news article at Mlive.com that a shot was fired during the commission of the crime, however no one was injured.

After arriving on the scene and searching for the two teens, police located them on Clyde Park Avenue SW hiding near a trash dumpster where they also found weapons and some of the stolen goods nearby.

The teens remained in the Kent County Jail on $100,000 bonds after waiving their probable cause hearing. If convicted, each may be sentenced to up to 22 years in prison.

Michigan breaking and entering attorneys understand the seriousness of committing a crime such as home invasion, and the severe punishment those convicted face. In this situation, if the defendants are convicted and serve the maximum sentence, they will be middle-age before released from prison.

September 26, 2013

Flint Man Pleads Guilty in Federal Court to Crack Cocaine Distribution Charge

by Scott Grabel

On Tuesday September 24, Erik E. Thompson of Flint pleaded guilty in Flint U.S. District Court to a single count of distributing crack cocaine. Thompson, who is 28 years old, avoided prison in a previous case involving a deadly shootout at an area apartment complex when he pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

Thompson admitted that in July of 2010, he had sold approximately $40 worth of crack cocaine on the south side of the city. Thompson was indicted on federal drug charges in October of 2012 following an alleged attempt to sell crack cocaine to a confidential informant. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charge.

According to authorities, Thompson met with someone he believed to be a customer behind a gas station, planning on selling the customer more than $1,000 of crack. Unbeknownst to Thompson, he was meeting with a Flint Area Narcotics Group informant, according to court records. As authorities approached Thompson’s vehicle to make an arrest, the defendant fled on foot. Upon pursuing Thompson, officers saw the suspect toss a clear plastic bag on top of a carport, suspecting it contained crack. Upon retrieving the bag, it was alleged to have contained almost 12 grams of crack cocaine.

Thompson spent nearly three years in jail in connection with the 2007 death of Jawaine Lay, who was killed during a shootout at a nearby apartment complex. Ultimately, Thompson testified against others accused in Lay’s death in exchange for his guilty plea to assault with harm less than murder.

According to a news article at Mlive.com, Thompson is scheduled for sentencing by U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith on January 21.

Individuals convicted of distributing or selling drugs including cocaine, methamphetamines, and ecstasy often face extremely harsh penalties including fines of up to $25,000 and up to 20 years in prison. In the above case, news reports indicate that in exchange for his plea, Thompson will face a sentence upward of 15 years in prison.

September 25, 2013

Trial Begins for Ishpeming Man Charged with Open Murder

by Scott Grabel

In June of 2012, 29-year-old David Meyer died after suffering gunshot wounds allegedly inflicted by 52-year-old Jack Carpenter of Ishpeming. Carpenter claims that he shot Meyer in self-defense after Meyer attempted to assault him with a knife. Carpenter is charged with open murder in the death of the victim; his attorney, Karl Numinen, says that his client was standing his ground, and that his actions were justifiable within Michigan’s stand your ground and self defense law.

Carpenter’s defense attorney requested the judge grant Carpenter immunity, however the judge denied the motion on the basis of allegations made by the prosecutor, who said Carpenter was intoxicated at the time of the shooting.

In August of this year Matt Wiese, Marquette County Prosecutor, explained at a final pretrial hearing that he had offered a plea agreement to Carpenter offering him the opportunity to plead guilty to manslaughter, a 15 year felony. Wiese told the judge that the defendant had rejected the plea deal, so Carpenter would go on trial on charges of open murder and felony firearm.

Carpenter’s trial is set to begin today, September 25 after jury selection was completed on Tuesday. According to a news article at Upper Michigan’s Source, the two men became involved in an altercation at the defendant’s home. Carpenter alleges that the victim threatened him and tried to assault him with a knife, so he defended himself by shooting Meyer.

Michigan homicide defense lawyers understand the life-changing consequences individuals who are convicted of open or first-degree murder face. A conviction on charges of first-degree murder may leave the accused facing life in prison.

September 25, 2013

Sentence of Stanton Man Convicted for Planting Acid Bomb Vacated by Michigan Appeals Court

by Scott Grabel

Steven Stewart, a former Stanton resident, was sentenced to up to 50 years in prison in June of 2011 for planting an acid explosive which allegedly maimed his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend. The attack occurred in September of 2008; the judge in the case, Montcalm County Circuit Judge Suzanne Hoseth Kreeger, exceeded the recommendation in state sentencing guidelines of a maximum of almost 19 years, opting instead to sentence Stewart to up to 50 years. The judge exceeded maximum sentencing due to the extent of injury suffered by the victim, Derek Lehman, and the uncertainty of the chemical used in making the explosive.

According to a news article at the Stanton Daily News, Lehman suffered permanent loss of eyesight in his right eye, and severe burns to his left arm as a result of the attack. Stewart was allegedly jealous of his ex-girlfriend’s relationship with Lehman, and built a chemical bomb, placing it in a wooden box in Lehman’s driveway at his home in Eureka Township. Upon opening the box, a mixture said to contain sulfuric acid exploded onto Lehman’s face and body.

Stewart argued in his appeal that Judge Kreeger abused her power when she failed to clearly express her reasons for departing substantially from state sentencing guidelines. Ultimately, the appeals court upheld Stewart’s conviction, but vacated sentencing finding that the trial court did abuse its discretion in sentencing Stewart.

Kreeger argued that she imposed the increased sentence based
on several facts including the pain and suffering the victim, his girlfriend, and both families suffered, and his loss of eyesight; the fact that the crime took place on September 11, and that because it took place on that date, the Spectrum Health United Hospital in Greenville went into disaster mode and shut down.

Ultimately, the Michigan appeals court agreed with one of the four reasons given by Judge Kreeger, the fact that the hospital was shut down. However, they did not agree with the other three, saying that although the crime did occur on September 11, there was no factual determination made by the trial court indicating that Stewart intentionally attempted to make a statement regarding terrorism in his decision to have the explosion occur on that date. Among other reasons, the appeals court stated that the trial court erred by not articulating reasons for the extent of the departure and failure to explain why the sentence handed down by the judge was more proportionate than that within the sentencing guidelines range.

On August 15, the Court of Appeals released an opinion vacating Stewart’s sentence and remanding the case back to court for resentencing, however the court did uphold his conviction.