Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In March of 2006, Ronald Wenman was convicted of felony murder in a case involving Walgreens clerk Patti Jo Morris. Wenman allegedly slashed Morris’ throat while holding up the Walgreens pharmacy in August of 2005.

Wenman was sentenced to life in prison, and has had his appeals for relief denied by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Now, U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox has denied Wenman’s relief motion.

Habeas corpus is the right of detained Americans to challenge their imprisonment. Wenman petitioned the federal court in Detroit for habeas corpus following his failed state appeals, claiming ineffective counsel, an “impermissibly suggestive” photo line-up, and that he is innocent of the crime. According to Wenman, a witness was shown a photo line-up in which he was the only individual wearing an orange jail uniform. A news article at Mlive.com states that Wenman is a parolee and career criminal.

Wenman also submitted a copy of a police report in his efforts to argue his claim that he is innocent of the murder. The police report indicated that investigators were told by a parolee that a prostitute and two other men committed the robberies which included Walgreens and a grocery store that was robbed hours prior to the murder of the clerk, another robbery Wenman was accused of. The federal judge’s ruling said that Wenman’s innocence is not demonstrated because of the fact police considered other suspects.

Wenman was incarcerated in the Lakeland Correctional Facility in Coldwater, where he remains.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys are very familiar with a “2255 petition,” or petition for writ of habeas corpus. Essentially, this is a request on behalf of a prisoner (may also be a judge or individual held in detention) to be brought to court by prison officials in order to determine whether that individual may have been imprisoned unlawfully.

Continue reading

In October of 2011 Dallas A. McDade Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder after allegedly shooting and killing 38-year-old Eric Lamont Jenkins in July of 2010, when McDade was just 17 years old. He was sentenced to mandatory life without parole. On Friday June 28, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that McDade be re-sentenced.

Originally sentenced by Kalamazoo County Circuit Judge Alexander C. Lipsey after being found guilty of first-degree murder, felony use of a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon and attempted murder, the Court of Appeals found that McDade’s sentence was a form of cruel and unusual punishment according to an opinion issued by the Supreme Court in June of 2012.

On June 25 of 2012, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Miller v. Alabama that made juvenile lifer sentences invalid, stating that these sentencing schemes are “a form of cruel and unusual punishment that fail to consider the potential for cognitive and character development in young people.” Donald Sappanos, McDade’s attorney, filed an appeal in his client’s case just 11 days prior to the Supreme Court issuing its ruling.

According to a news article at Mlive.com, evidence at his 2011 trial indicated that McDade shot Jenkins and another man when he became angry with a third man who disappeared with his marijuana and money in the 1100 block of Washington Avenue.

Kalamazoo County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Carrie Klein said that the question is not to whether McDade is guilty, but what his sentence will be. She stated that the Court of Appeals affirmed McDade’s conviction in very way. A new hearing had not been scheduled as of Friday.

Michigan criminal appeals lawyers understand that all people make mistakes, however in the case of juveniles sentencing can be particularly troubling. Although McDade was found guilty of first-degree murder, it is tough to put an individual who is so young and who has his entire life ahead of him behind bars for life.

Continue reading

In January of 2012, Richard Frank Thomas was convicted of the murder of Elijah Todd Butler, a crime that took place in October of 1971. Butler was a Marine who had married Geraldine Butler just four days earlier. According to a news article at Mlive.com, the man’s dying words, “Gerry, he did it” spoken in the arms of his wife were what helped convict Thomas more than 40 years later.

Geraldine Butler told authorities that Thomas had said that if she gave him her virginity, he would leave the couple alone. She alleged that Thomas had made death threats against herself and her husband. Butler was killed when he was shot at the doorstep of his home. Thomas allegedly threatened anyone who may know what he had done to keep quiet after the murder.

It was only after another murder that Thomas’s threats became more credible. In 1976, Thomas was convicted of murdering Robert Groothuis, a gas station owner. Thomas allegedly shot Groothuis, and was sentenced to life in prison. Still, it was 40 years later before the Metro Kent Cold Case Team would arrest Thomas for the murder of Butler.

Just this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed with Thomas’s claim that he had been denied his constitutional rights to a speedy trial. Thomas had also claimed that the delay damaged the credibility of witnesses, as the lapse of time since the shooting must have compromised witnesses’ memories.

Because Thomas was not arrested for the offense at the time it occurred, the appeals court found that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had not been violated. According to the court, “Mere delay between the time of the commission of an offense and arrest is not a denial of due process. There is no constitutional right to be arrested.” The appeals court also determined that Thomas’s claim that witnesses’ memories had deteriorated could not be shown to have affected the defense in his case, because the defendant could not show that any individual was capable of providing substantial proof of an alibi for Thomas at the time the crime was committed.

Experienced Michigan criminal appeals lawyers understand the difficulties individuals who have been convicted of a crime face. There are occasions on which an innocent person is convicted. At other times, sentencing may seem extremely harsh, and out of line with the state’s sentencing guidelines.

Continue reading

On Tuesday June 18, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in a case involving a 25-year-old Bay City man convicted for sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl. David B. Burns’ conviction was overturned in a unanimous 7-0 decision, the justices agreeing with a ruling made by the Michigan Court of Appeals in June of 2012 regarding hearsay statements which were allowed and admitted as evidence by the judge in Burns’ trial.

In his April 2011 trial, Burns was found guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a person younger than 13 after the jury deliberated only an hour and a half. Burns was then sentenced by Bay County Chief Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Schmidt to 25 to 41 years in prison.

During Burns’ trial, an associate minister of the church the 4-year-old girl attended, Viola Gonzales, testified that the little girl told her that the defendant was abusing her; Gonzales said that the girl went into “graphic” detail about the sexual assault. A news article at Mlive.com states that prosecutors in the case attempted on four occasions to get the girl to testify, but each time she refused to speak. The jury was allowed by Judge Schmidt to use Gonzales’ testimony not as corroborating evidence, but as evidence of proof. Schmidt said that this was allowed because of an exception to the hearsay rule due to the alleged 4-year-old victim’s unwillingness to testify, perhaps due to Burns telling her not to speak of the alleged sexual assault.

Additionally, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner testified to the fact that she performed a physical examination on the girl after being told she was abused, however conclusive evidence could not be obtained to substantiate the child’s allegations.

Ultimately the Supreme Court admonished Schmidt for permitting Gonzales to testify on behalf of the alleged victim; the justices also agreed that it was not proven by prosecutors that the girl would not testify because the defendant had instructed her to keep quiet or intimidated her. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and has remanded Burns’ case for a new trial.

Bay City attorney Edward M. Czuprynski who defended Burns said that his client is innocent, and that the entire case was a prosecution “built on a house of cards, on assumptions and hearsay.”

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys would agree that the evidence in this case is questionable, and that the evidence allowed by the judge was hearsay. Every individual deserves the right to a fair trial.

Continue reading