PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID LEE GREEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 12, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 199266
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 96-000069 FH
DAVID LEE GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Corrigan, C.J., and Hoekstra and Young, Jr., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of obtaining by false pretenses property
valued over $100, MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415, and habitual offender fourth, MCL 769.12; MSA
28.1084. He was sentenced to four to fifteen years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the
amount of $6,328.41. He appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the prosecution failed to prove all of the elements required under the
false pretenses statute. Specifically, defendant claims that the evidence failed to establish that he had the
intent to defraud because he believed he still had charging privileges with Windemuller Electric. 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 prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact
could find 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); People v Hutner, 209 Mich App 280,
282; 530 NW2d 174 (1995). Intent may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case. In re
People v Jory, 443 Mich 403, 419; 505 NW2d 228 (1993). Here, the prosecution presented
evidence that defendant was informed both at the time he was terminated from his employment and
afterwards that he had to pay his charge account balance. The prosecution also presented evidence that
defendant failed to make any payments on the account after the termination of his employment. This
evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant possessed the intent to defraud.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay restitution without
considering his ability to pay restitution as required by MCL 780.767(3); MSA 28.1287(767)(3). We
-1
disagree. Defendant, having failed to request an evidentiary hearing to determine his ability to
-2
pay restitution, has not properly raised this issue for our review. See People v Griffis, 218 Mich App
95, 103-104; 553 NW2d 642 (1996). The statute does not require the trial judge to make a separate
factual inquiry and individual findings on the record. People v Grant, 455 Mich 221, 243; 565 NW2d
389 (1997). Instead, a judge is entitled to rely on the information in the presentence report, which is
presumed to be accurate unless the defendant effectively challenges the accuracy of the factual
information. Id. at 233-234. Here, defendant’s presentence investigation report stated that defendant
had a GED, was in good health, and was able to maintain employment. Nothing in the report indicated
that defendant would not be able to obtain employment upon his release and pay the restitution ordered
by the trial court. Defendant and his attorney reviewed the report, and defendant’s attorney stated that
they had no objections to the information contained in the report. On these facts, we find no error.
Affirmed.
/s/ Maura D. Corrigan
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-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.