People of Michigan v. Tarone Devon Washington
330345
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Tarone Washington was tried by jury and convicted of: keeping/maintaining a drug house (MCL 333.7405(1)(d)), felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b), possession of marijuana (MCL 333.7403(2)(d)), and receiving/concealing a stolen firearm (MCL 750.535b). Sentences included concurrent jail terms and a consecutive 2-year felony-firearm term; court vacated felony-firearm on appeal.
- Police executed a search warrant at a residence; defendant was found alone in the southeast basement bedroom. Officers recovered drug paraphernalia with heroin/cocaine/marijuana residue, a digital scale, substantial cash (including a bill identified as buy money from prior controlled buys), a small baggie of marijuana on the bed, and a duffle bag containing male gym clothes with a stolen pistol hidden inside.
- Detective testimony established controlled buys at the address, maintained buy-money tracking, and linked the buy bill to defendant’s pocket. Lab analysis confirmed drug residues and marijuana in the baggie.
- The prosecutor argued the buy money tied defendant to narcotics transactions and thus to maintaining the drug house; defense objected to some closing remarks alleging burden-shifting and comment on defendant’s silence.
- On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of evidence claims de novo, analyzed statutory definitions (Penal Code vs. Public Health Code), considered prosecutorial-misconduct claims, habitual-offender notice timing, and challenges to the presentence investigation report (PSIR).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — keeping/maintaining a drug house | Evidence (buy money, drugs/residue, scale, cash, multiple occupants, CI buys) established control, continuity, and knowledge | Insufficient proof of control over the house and of continuity (more than isolated incident required) | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence and CI buys supported continuity, control, and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt |
| Validity of felony-firearm charge when underlying offense is a statutory misdemeanor (keeping a drug house) | Under felony-firearm the underlying offense may be treated as a felony for sentencing purposes | Keeping/maintaining a drug house is a misdemeanor under the Public Health Code and cannot serve as the underlying felony for MCL 750.227b | Vacated felony-firearm: holding that the drug-house offense, as a misdemeanor, could not support a felony-firearm conviction; remand not warranted for retrial on that charge |
| Sufficiency — possession of marijuana | Prosecution: constructive possession shown by proximity, scale, cash, and other indicia of control | Defendant: no proof he possessed the baggie of marijuana | Affirmed: jury could infer dominion/control and constructive possession |
| Sufficiency — receiving/concealing stolen firearm | Prosecution: gun was stolen, hidden in duffle near defendant, found among his clothes — shows concealment and knowledge | Defendant: challenged sufficiency of concealment/knowledge | Affirmed: LEIN and victim ID showed gun was stolen; proximity, concealment, and circumstances supported knowledge and concealment |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — closing comments | Prosecutor: argued evidence was uncontradicted and tied together by buy money; responsive to defense and permissible to call evidence “uncontradicted” | Defendant: prosecutor commented on defendant’s silence and shifted burden by saying "no other explanation" | Rejected: remarks were proper as argument that evidence was uncontradicted and responsive to defense; curative jury instructions cured any concern |
| Habitual-offender notice timing | Prosecution: notice filed with the information and served within 21 days after information was filed (complaint arraignment waived for information) | Defendant: notice was untimely because measured from arraignment on complaint | Rejected: defendant waived arraignment on the information; statute requires filing within 21 days after filing the information when arraignment on information is waived — notice was timely |
| PSIR inaccuracies | Prosecution: PSIR items drawn from police reports and trial evidence; accurate by preponderance | Defendant: PSIR miscites plea as "Plea" not "Trial" and contains residency/drug-sale allegations he disputes | Court: clerical error (plea/trial) must be corrected; remaining challenged items supported by trial record and need not be stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Thompson, 477 Mich. 146 (explaining continuity element for keeping/maintaining a drug house)
- People v Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508 (sufficiency review and constructive possession principles)
- People v Smith, 423 Mich. 427 (distinguishing definitions of "felony" across codes for sentencing statutes)
- People v Williams, 243 Mich. App. 333 (holding a two-year misdemeanor under Penal Code cannot serve as underlying felony for felony-firearm)
- People v Baker, 207 Mich. App. 224 (vacating felony-firearm when underlying offense was a misdemeanor)
- People v Nutt, 469 Mich. 565 (elements of receiving/concealing stolen firearm)