PEOPLE OF MI V ALBERT MITCHELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 15, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 202455
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-003691
ALBERT MITCHELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Murphy and J. B. Sullivan*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for possession of less than twenty-five
grams of heroin, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(v). Defendant was sentenced to
six months to four years in prison. We affirm.
Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court’s finding of fact that defendant was in possession
of heroin was clearly erroneous. We disagree. Findings of fact by the trial court may not be set aside
unless clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C); MCR 6.001(D). A finding of fact is considered “clearly
erroneous” if, after review of the entire record, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. People v Swirles (After Remand), 218 Mich App 133,
136; 553 NW2d 357 (1996).
Defendant claims that the trial court’s finding that Detroit Police Officer Ralph Sumbry observed
defendant toss a plastic baggie containing suspected heroin was erroneous because Sumbry had an
obstructed view of defendant and no other police officer could corroborate Sumbry’s observations.
However, the testimony of Officer Sumbry clearly indicates that he viewed defendant when he tossed a
plastic baggie, later found to contain heroin, onto a second floor porch. In this case, the trial court
believed the testimony of Officer Sumbry and not defendant. “The trial court is best qualified to hear
relevant witnesses’ testimony and gauge credibility.” MCR 2.613(C); People v Tanner, 222 Mich
App 626, 635; 564 NW2d 197 (1997).
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Defendant also claims that the trial court did not take into consideration, when making its
findings, the failure of the Detroit Police Department to conduct a fingerprint analysis of the plastic
baggie allegedly in defendant’s possession. Factual findings are sufficient if it appears that the trial court
was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law. People v Armstrong, 175 Mich
App 181, 185; 437 NW2d 343 (1989). Although the trial court did not make specific findings as to
the absent fingerprint analysis, it is clear that the court was fully aware of the issue. Regardless, there
was eyewitness testimony directly linking defendant to the heroin. Therefore, we hold that the trial
court’s finding that defendant was in possession of the plastic baggie containing heroin was not clearly
erroneous.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Joseph B. Sullivan
-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.