People of Michigan v. Carlton Virgil Burks
329696
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Carlton Virgil Burks was tried for first-degree retail fraud for a December 23, 2013 Target theft; surveillance showed a perpetrator leaving unpurchased bedding in a truck registered to Burks. Prosecution also presented evidence of multiple similar Target thefts (Dec. 17, 24, 26, 27, 2013); Burks pleaded guilty to three counts from the Troy store incidents.
- Asset-protection officer testified the missing items (duvet cover, eight-piece bedding set, comforter) totaled $289.97 and matched surveillance footage; a cashier identified Burks from a photograph.
- Defendant was arrested Dec. 27, 2013; complaint filed Feb. 20, 2014; trial began Sept. 1, 2015. Defendant raised speedy-trial and MCL 780.131 (180-day) claims.
- Trial court admitted other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) to prove identity/scheme; trial lasted under six hours.
- Jury convicted; sentencing as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 22 months–30 years. Court affirmed conviction and sentence but remanded to correct an erroneous PSIR entry (parole status).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of constitutional speedy trial | Delay not attributable to prosecution; prosecution diligently pursued case | Excessive delay (~18+ months) violated Sixth Amendment | No violation: majority of delay attributed to defendant; no actual prejudice despite presumption |
| 180‑day rule (MCL 780.131) | Proceedings were commenced within 180 days (DOC disposition request/arraignment/pretrial activity) | Action not commenced within 180 days, requiring dismissal | No violation: action was commenced within the 180‑day window and prosecution did not show inexcusable post‑period delay |
| Admission of MRE 404(b) other‑acts evidence | Other‑acts probative of identity/scheme; limited in scope; jury instructed | Excessive/unfairly prejudicial: multiple thefts injected bias | No abuse of discretion: evidence showed a distinctive pattern; probative value outweighed prejudice; jury instructive limiting use |
| Sufficiency re: "price" element for first‑degree retail fraud | Price tags/inventory evidence established combined price ≥ $200 and < $1,000 | Insufficient proof of which items taken and whether tag prices reflected true value | Evidence sufficient: inventory lookup and surveillance tied items to defendant; statute uses "price," not market value |
| Presentence Investigation Report error | N/A (prosecution conceded error) | PSIR incorrectly listed defendant as on parole at time of offense | Remand for ministerial correction of PSIR |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four‑factor balancing test for speedy trial claims)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (speedy‑trial protections attach on indictment/charging or actual restraint)
- People v. Lown, 488 Mich. 242 (interpreting MCL 780.131; commencement of action under 180‑day rule)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (other‑acts/identity modus operandi test and speedy‑trial timing guidance)
- People v. Blackston, 481 Mich. 451 (factors for probative value vs. unfair prejudice in other‑acts evidence)
- People v. Williams, 475 Mich. 245 (standards of review for constitutional and statutory questions)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)