Dеfendant appeals as of right from a jury trial conviction of unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. Defendant was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082, to five tо fifteen years’ imprisonment. We reverse and remand.
On November 12, 1997, defendant was seen attempting to conceal a drill and a thermostat in his jacket in a Meijer store. Defendant then went to the checkout lanes where he purchased some oil. Defendant proceeded out of the store without paying for the drill or the thermostat. After defendant left the store, a struggle between defendant and store security guards ensued in the parking lot. According to the *419 security guards defendant pulled one of the guards to the ground, holding her there for several minutes and causing her to suffer a fractured bone and two broken teeth. The security guards eventually restrained defendant with the aid of a taxicab driver.
Defendant admitted at trial that he took items from the Meijer store without paying for them. However, he denied using any force against the security guards in the parking lot. Defendant claimed that after he left the store he was hit or kicked from behind, causing him to fall forward. A jury convicted defendant of unarmеd robbery.
Defendant first argues on appeal that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to sustain his conviction of unarmed robbеry. We agree. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
People v Johnson,
Defendant was charged and convicted of unarmed robbery. The elements of unarmed robbery are (1) a felonious taking of property from another, (2) by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear, and (3) bеing unarmed. MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798;
People v Johnson,
In this case, defendant admitted that he took merchandise from the store without paying for it. However, defendant contends that there was no evidence thаt he used force or threats to take the property *420 from a person. Defendant further contends that even if he used force to get away from the security guаrds, he is. not guilty of unarmed robbery because he never succeeded in escaping the premises.
In
People v LeFlore,
Our Court has recognized that the assault may follow the taking if that force is used to completely sever the victim’s possession. Implicit in this recognition is the requirement that the defendant intend at the time of the assault to preserve his possession of the stolen goods; his larcenous intent must be constant. The larceny transaction should be viewed as a whole to determine the defendant’s intent.
We bеlieve that this “transaction approach” is appropriate for analyzing any larceny, particularly robbery, where the forceful act may greatly precurse or lag behind the taking. Both the armed and unarmed robbery statutes are clear that the forceful act must be used to accomplish the taking. Unless there is a purposeful relationship between these two elements, the criminal episode is merely two isolated crimes of larceny and perhaps assault and battery. The entire larcеnous transaction should be reviewed to determine if there is a continuity of intent between the forceful act and the taking (or vice versa). If so, a robbery conviсtion is possible. If not, there may merely be larceny from the person. [Citations omitted; emphasis in original.]
In
People v Tinsley,
There was evidence presented at trial that defendant used force as a means of escaping the store’s security guards; therеfore, viewing defendant’s crime as a whole larcenous transaction, defendant would have been guilty of unarmed robbery if he had succeeded in his escape as did the defendants in Tinsley and Turner. However, viewing the crime as a whole larcenous transaction requires the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to suppоrt defendant’s conviction of unarmed robbery because defendant was unsuccessful in escaping and thus he never completed the larcenous transactiоn. Therefore, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of unarmed robbery.
Where, as here, reversal is requirеd because the jury was permitted to consider a charge unwarranted by the proofs, the appropriate remedy is to remand for entry of a convictiоn on the lesser included offense and for resentencing, with the prosecutor having the option to retry the defendant on the original charge if additional evidenсe is discovered to support it.
Johnson, supra
at 125. In this case, the jury was instructed on the offense of larceny in a building, MCL 750.360; MSA 28.592, which is a cognate lesser included offense of unarmed robbеry.
People v Ramsey,
The elements of larceny in a building are (1) the actual or constructive taking of goods or property, (2) a carrying away or asportation, (3) the carrying awаy must be with a felonious intent, (4) the goods or
*422
property must be the personal property of another, (5) the taking must be without the consent and against the will of the owner, and (6) the taking must occur within the confines of the building.
People v Sykes,
Accordingly, we reverse defendant’s conviction of unarmed robbery and remand for entry of a judgment of conviction of the lesser offense of larceny in a building. Defendant is also entitled to resentencing.
Defendant further asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Because defendant did not request a Ginther
1
hearing, our review is limited to mistakes apparent on the record.
People v Williams,
For purposes of remand for resentencing, we note that we disagree with defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly based defendant’s sentence on the belief that defendant’s age made him a poor candidate for rehabilitation. The trial court properly considered defendant’s age in tenns of other permissible and relevant factors, such as defendant’s extensive criminal record and admitted drug abuse, in sentencing defendant to a reasonable term of years. See
People v Fleming,
We further note for purposes of remand that defendant’s presentеnce report should reflect the agreement of the parties at the sentencing hearing that defendant’s criminal record includes two, rather than four, misdemeаnor convictions. See MCR 6.425(D)(3).
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction of larceny in a building and resentencing, unless the prosecutor opts to retry defendant on the original charge based on additional evidence. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Notes
People v Ginther,