PEOPLE OF MI V EDDIE JUNIOR PRATT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
December 17, 2002
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 228081
Ottawa Circuit Court
LC No. 99-023002-FH
v
EDDIE JUNIOR PRATT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
February 14, 2003
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and R.J. Danhof*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction of receiving and concealing stolen
property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $20,000, MCL 750.535(3)(a). Defendant was
sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to three to fifteen years'
imprisonment. We affirm both defendant's conviction and sentence.
This case involved defendant's taking of his former girlfriend's 1990 Buick Regal.
Defendant maintained that he borrowed the car from her, while his former girlfriend testified that
defendant took her car without permission. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence used to support his conviction. Evidence is sufficient to convict a defendant when a
rational factfinder could determine that the prosecutor proved every element of the crime
charged beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Cain, 238 Mich App 95, 116-117; 605 NW2d 28
(1999). To establish that defendant was guilty of the offense, the prosecution is required to
prove: (1) the property was stolen; (2) the value of the property met the statutory requirement;
(3) defendant received, possessed, or concealed the property with knowledge that the property
was stolen; (4) the identity of the property as being that previously stolen; and (5) the guilty
actual or constructive knowledge of the defendant that the property received or concealed was
stolen. People v Quinn, 219 Mich App 571, 574; 557 NW2d 151 (1996). Defendant takes issue
with only two of the elements: first, defendant contends that there was no evidence presented that
the car was stolen; and second, that there was insufficient evidence presented with respect to the
value of the Buick.
With regard to whether the car was stolen, defendant asserts that there was no evidence
presented that he intended to permanently deprive the owner of her car. Defendant's argument
____________________________
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
hinges on his assertion that for the property to be "stolen," it must have been taken by larceny
and, thus, taken with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Defendant is
correct that a larceny requires that the property must be taken with such an intent. See, e.g.,
Cain, supra at 119, citing People v Goodchild, 68 Mich App 226, 232; 242 NW2d 465 (1976)
("The felonious intent required for larceny, animus furandi, is an intent to permanently deprive
the owner of his property."). However, we find that the statute concerns any property taken
without permission, not only property taken by larceny.
MCL 750.535(3)(a) requires that a defendant must have possessed stolen goods.
However, the statute does not define "stolen." In the absence of statutory definition of a term,
this Court may consult dictionary definitions to determine the common meaning of a term.
People v Morey, 461 Mich 325, 330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999). Random House Webster's College
Dictionary (2000), defines "steal" as "to take (the property of another or others) without
permission or right, esp. secretly or by force," and "to appropriate . . . without right or
acknowledgement." For goods to be considered stolen under this definition, they need only be
taken without permission or right; thus, "stolen" goods encompass a broader category than just
goods taken by larceny. Defendant conceded that sufficient evidence was offered to permit a
reasonable jury to conclude that he took the car without permission. Accordingly, the jury could
have concluded that the car was "stolen" as that term is used in the statute.
Defendant also challenges whether sufficient evidence was admitted regarding the value
of the Buick, contending that the prosecution should have been required to have the car
appraised. Again, we disagree. With regard to a general valuation rule, at least in the context of
the larceny statute, this Court, in People v Johnson, 133 Mich App 150, 153; 348 NW2d 716
(1984), stated:
While the larceny statute itself does not provide a guide for determining
the value of property which is the subject of a theft, case law supports the use of
fair market value as the relevant standard when such a value exists. Generally,
proof of value is determined by reference to the time and place of the offense.
Value has been interpreted to mean the price that the item will bring on an open
market between a willing buyer and seller. [Citations omitted.]
An owner of a car is qualified to testify about the value of his property unless his valuation is
based on personal or sentimental value. People v Watts, 133 Mich App 80, 84; 348 NW2d 39
1984). The phrase "personal value" means subjective value to the owner, or a value that cannot
be objectively substantiated. People v Dyer, 157 Mich App 606, 611; 403 NW2d 84 (1986).
Here, the former girlfriend's father, who had purchased the car, testified about its value. There
was no evidence admitted to suggest that his perception of the Buick's value was based on his
personal or sentimental value; therefore, a jury could conclude that the car was valued at more
than $1,000. Defendant's assertion that the prosecution should have provided an appraiser's
testimony is without merit. Case law is clear that a prosecutor has the discretion to prove his
case by whatever admissible evidence he chooses. See, e.g., People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441,
452; 537 NW2d 577 (1995). Because the prosecutor is under no obligation to present the
evidence defendant feels appropriate, defendant's sufficiency of the evidence claim is without
merit.
-2-
Defendant also argues that his sentence is disproportionate because it fails to consider
either the seriousness of the offense or his rehabilitation. However, nothing in the record
indicates that his sentence is outside the statutory guidelines. Under MCL 769.34(10), this Court
may not consider challenges to a sentence based exclusively on proportionality, if the sentence
falls within the guidelines. We therefore affirm defendant's sentence.
Defendant argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fully investigate two
incidents and to call two witnesses who he maintains would have corroborated his testimony.
We disagree.
Because defendant did not move for a hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich
436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973), this Court's review is limited to errors apparent on the record.
People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 385; 624 NW2d 227 (2001). Here, defendant merely
represents that these witnesses would have testified as he states. However, other than
defendant's statements, there is simply no showing that these witnesses exist or that their
testimony would have benefited defendant had they been called. Thus, there are no errors
apparent on the record. Therefore, defendant's argument that he was denied the effective
assistance of trial counsel is without merit.
Defendant asserts that his appellate attorney was also ineffective for failing to raise an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his trial attorney. The test for ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel is the same as that for trial counsel. People v Reed, 198 Mich
App 639, 646; 499 NW2d 441 (1993), aff 'd 449 Mich 375; 535 NW2d 496 (1995). Our
Supreme Court has stated that "appellate counsel's decision to winnow out weaker arguments and
focus on those more likely to prevail is not evidence of ineffective assistance." 449 Mich 391.
Furthermore, defendant's argument fails because he is unable to show any possible prejudice.
Defendant himself argues that his trial counsel was ineffective; therefore, the issue was presented
to this Court, and appellate counsel's failure to do so was insignificant. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Robert J. Danhof
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.