PEOPLE OF MI V DION WOODS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 8, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 216353
Wayne Circuit Court
Criminal Division
LC No. 98-002281
DION WOODS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Kelly and Sawyer, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of four counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a), and three counts of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c(1)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(1)(a). He was sentenced to
concurrent terms of twelve to twenty years’ imprisonment for each of the first-degree CSC
convictions and seven to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each of the second-degree CSC
convictions. Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. When reviewing a claim
of insufficient evidence, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential
elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508,
515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992).
The testimony of the child victims, viewed most favorably to the prosecution, was
sufficient to support defendant’s convictions for four counts of first-degree CSC and three counts
of second-degree CSC. Although defendant impugns the credibility and reliability of the two
child victims, their credibility was a matter for the trier of fact to decide. This Court will not
resolve it anew. People v Daniels, 172 Mich App 374, 378; 431 NW2d 846 (1988). Further,
-1-
contrary to what defendant argues, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law reveal
that the court was convinced of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ David H. Sawyer
-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.
