PEOPLE v ATKINS
Docket No. 78-1063
Michigan Court of Appeals
Submitted September 4, 1979; Decided November 6, 1979
93 Mich App 524
- The felony-firearm statute does not violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.
- A defendant may be convicted as an aider and abettor of a possessory crime such as felony-firearm where it can be shown that the defendant knowingly acted or encouraged, with the intent to aid, the possessor to obtain or retain possession of the firearm during the commission of a felony.
- The defendant, in his guilty plea, provided a sufficient factual basis to establish that he knowingly acted and encouraged his companions to obtain possession of a firearm and that he assisted and encouraged them to use the firearm during the commission of a felony.
Affirmed.
T. M. Burns, J., dissented. He would hold that the felony-firearm statute requires that a defendant personally carry or possess a firearm in order to be found guilty of a violation of the statute and that the defendant should not have been convicted of violating the felony-firearm statute as an aider and abettor.
OPINION OF THE COURT
1. CRIMINAL LAW — FELONY-FIREARM — AIDING AND ABETTING — STATUTES.
The felony-firearm statute does not require proof of a defendant‘s
2. CRIMINAL LAW — AIDING AND ABETTING — PRESENCE AT SCENE OF CRIME.
An accused, in order to be convicted as an aider and abettor, need not be present at the scene of the crime; however, it is necessary to establish a sufficient factual basis to show that the accused procured, counseled, aided or abetted in the commission of the offense.
DISSENT BY T. M. BURNS, J.
3. CRIMINAL LAW — STATUTES — STRICT CONSTRUCTION.
Statutes that define criminal acts must be strictly construed.
4. CRIMINAL LAW — FELONY-FIREARM — POSSESSION OF FIREARM — STATUTES.
A defendant must personally carry or have in his possession a firearm during the commission of a felony in order to be found guilty under the felony-firearm statute (
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, David H. Sawyer, Prosecuting Attorney, and Carol S. Irons, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
George S. Buth, for defendant on appeal.
Before: ALLEN, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and T. M. BURNS, JJ.
PER CURIAM. On December 7, 1977, defendant pled guilty to robbery armed, contrary to
First, defendant claims that the felony-firearm statute is unconstitutional on grounds of double jeopardy. This claim was rejected by the Michigan Supreme Court in Wayne County Prosecutor v Recorder‘s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). We likewise reject the contention here.
The second issue raised by defendant-appellant questions whether he, as an aider and abettor, can be convicted under the felony-firearm statute where there is no indication that defendant personally carried, or had in his possession, a firearm at the time of the robbery. There is a difference of opinion in this Court on this issue. Compare People v Walter Johnson, 85 Mich App 654, 658; 272 NW2d 605 (1978), and People v Powell, 90 Mich App 273, 274-5; 282 NW2d 803 (1979), with People v Walter Johnson, supra at 672-673 (KAUFMAN, J., dissenting), People v Tavolacci, 88 Mich App 470; 276 NW2d 919 (1979), People v Powell, supra at 275-276 (CYNAR, J., dissenting). Careful reading of People v Tavolacci, supra, and the relevant portions of Judge KAUFMAN‘S dissenting opinion in People v Walter Johnson, supra, persuades us that
However, in order that an accused may be con-
Therefore, the question still remains whether defendant supplied a sufficient factual basis for the felony-firearm plea. GCR 1963, 785.7(3)(a). Although it is clear that the accused, as an aider and abettor, need not be present at the scene of the crime, it is necessary that a sufficient factual basis be provided to show that he procured, counseled, aided or abetted in the commission of the possessory offense. People v Tavolacci, supra, at 475. Thus, while we affirm defendant‘s conviction on the armed robbery charge, People v Sharp, 57 Mich App 624; 226 NW2d 590 (1975), People v Spry, 74 Mich App 584, 595; 254 NW2d 782 (1977), it is necessary to examine the record of defendant‘s guilty plea in order to determine if there was a sufficient factual basis provided for defendant‘s conviction as an aider and abettor to “felony-firearm“. We find that there is.
Defendant admitted driving the stolen automobile used to transport him and his cohorts to a house where they all broke and entered, taking four guns, including a shotgun. Defendant and his companions subsequently used these guns to rob three business establishments. However, during the particular robbery for which defendant pled guilty, he did not enter the food store, but instead waited outside in the car. Despite his lack of
Affirmed.
T. M. BURNS, J. (dissenting). The operable language of the felony-firearm statute states that a person “who carries or has in his possession” a firearm at the time that he commits or attempts to commit a felony is guilty of a felony.
ALLEN, P.J.
R. B. BURNS, J.
T. M. BURNS, J.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 119-124.
[3] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 17.
73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 274-276.
[4] 79 Am Jur 2d, Weapons and Firearms § 9.
