People of Michigan v. Troy Darnell Anderson
329983
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Troy Darnell Anderson was convicted by a jury of unlawfully driving away an automobile (UDAA), MCL 750.413, and sentenced to 40–60 months’ imprisonment as a fourth habitual offender.
- The vehicle (a Caprice) had been purchased by Lee (title originally to Lee, later transferred to Shaleely) and returned to Lee after Shaleely stopped payments; Lee listed and actively tried to sell the car and kept it for over 30 days.
- Security-camera footage showed two persons entering the Caprice; codefendant Burton-Scott was connected to the taking and ran to an Escort parked at a CVS where defendant had been driving.
- After defendant was removed from the Escort, a cell phone was found on the driver’s seat; when police called a number Lee had given, that phone rang, linking the Escort phone to the number Lee had been texting about the Caprice.
- The prosecution proceeded on an aiding-and-abetting theory; defendant challenged sufficiency of evidence, his sentence (post-Lockridge), and asserted ineffective assistance of trial counsel on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — ownership element of UDAA | Lee had exclusive use >30 days and acted as owner; vehicle taken without Lee’s permission | Shaleely (titleholder) didn’t testify; thus ownership and lack of authority not proven | Court: Enough circumstantial evidence that Lee qualified as owner under MCL 257.37 and car taken without authority; sufficiency affirmed |
| Sufficiency — aiding & abetting link to defendant | Phone found on Escort rang when police called Lee’s contact; texts from that number to Lee; video shows two entering Caprice and codefendant running to Escort — supports inference Anderson aided/timed the taking | Only direct evidence pointed to Burton-Scott; no fingerprints on car; mere presence insufficient | Court: Circumstantial evidence (phone, texts, video, proximity) permitted reasonable inference of aiding and abetting; conviction affirmed |
| Sentence reasonableness (Lockridge) | Sentence within guidelines; Lockridge reasonableness review applies only to departure sentences | Defendant argued procedural/substantive unreasonableness and sought resentencing under Lockridge | Court: Minimum sentence within guidelines 7–46 months and MCL 769.34(10) mandates affirmance absent scoring error or inaccurate info; sentence affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel failed to object to absence of Shaleely’s testimony, failed to challenge phone evidence (numbers/dates/IMEI), failed to file suppression motion, and failed to attack video timestamp | Counsel’s omissions were either futile, reasonable trial strategy, or caused no prejudice; defendant didn’t pursue Ginther hearing so record inadequate | Court: Claims unpreserved or fail on record review; no evident deficient performance or prejudice; IAC claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- People v McGhee, 268 Mich. App. 600 (evidentiary sufficiency standards and appellate review) (discusses de novo review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecutor)
- People v Bailey, 310 Mich. App. 703 (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences can prove elements) (standard for sufficiency and credibility deference)
- People v Cain, 495 Mich. 874 (definition and elements of UDAA) (clarifies that taking/driving without authority must be proven)
- People v Pinkney, 316 Mich. App. 450 (aiding and abetting elements) (sets out elements to convict under aiding/abetting theory)
- People v Fetterley, 229 Mich. App. 511 (minimal circumstantial evidence can establish intent) (intent may be inferred from facts and circumstances)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (sentencing–guidelines reasonableness post-Booker framework) (addresses review when courts depart from guidelines)
- People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich. App. 1 (application of Lockridge and proportionality review for departure sentences) (discusses appellate reasonableness review post-Lockridge)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance test) (requires deficient performance and prejudice)