PEOPLE OF MI V JOHNNY DURR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 10, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 195489
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 95-009406
JOHNNY DURR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Young, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his bench trial conviction for possession with intent to deliver
less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv). Defendant
was sentenced to two to twenty years in prison. We affirm.
Defendant argues that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain his conviction for
possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine. Specifically, defendant contends there
was insufficient evidence to establish an intent to deliver. We disagree. When reviewing a claim of
insufficient evidence following a bench trial, this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable
to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential
elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221,
268-270; 380 NW2d 11 (1985).
[T]o support a conviction for possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of
cocaine, it is necessary for the prosecutor to prove four elements: (1) that the
recovered substance is cocaine, (2) that the cocaine is in a mixture weighing less than
fifty grams, (3) that defendant was not authorized to possess the substance, and (4) that
defendant knowingly possessed the cocaine with the intent to deliver. [People v Wolfe,
440 Mich 508, 516-517; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1201; 489 NW2d 748
(1992), citing People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464, 468; 444 NW2d 194 (1989).]
“[I]ntent to deliver may be proven by circumstantial evidence and also may be inferred from the amount
of controlled substance possessed.” People v Ray, 191 Mich App 706, 708; 479 NW2d 1 (1991).
-1
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the evidence
was sufficient to convict defendant of possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine.
Defendant’s possession of ten rocks of crack cocaine, the amount of cash found on his person, his
behavior while under surveillance, and the fact that he possessed no use paraphernalia constitutes
sufficient evidence from which to infer that defendant possessed the cocaine with the intent to deliver it.
See Wolfe, supra at 524-525; Ray, supra at 708-709. A rational trier of fact could have concluded
that the essential elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-2
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.
