PEOPLE OF MI V ALONZO PERKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 16, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 228690
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-011555
ALONZO PERKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Cavanagh and Gribbs,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial convictions for second-degree murder, MCL
750.317, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. He
was sentenced to eighteen to forty years’ imprisonment for the second-degree murder conviction,
and two years’ imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction, the sentences to run
consecutively. We affirm.
Defendant’s first issue is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for
second-degree murder. We disagree. We review claims of insufficient evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether there was sufficient evidence to justify
a rational trier of fact in finding that the essential elements of an offense were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748, modified in part 441
Mich 1201 (1992); People v Hutner, 209 Mich App 280, 282; 530 NW2d 174 (1995).
The elements of second-degree murder are: (1) a death, (2) caused by an act of the
defendant, (3) with malice, and (4) without justification or excuse. People v Mayhew, 236 Mich
App 112, 125; 600 NW2d 370 (1999). The element of malice is met by proving the intent to kill,
the intent to cause great bodily harm, or the intent to do an act in wanton and wilful disregard of
the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.
Id. Malice may be inferred from evidence that the defendant intentionally set in motion a force
likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Id. The intent to do an act in obvious disregard of
life-endangering consequences is a malicious intent; the defendant need not actually intend the
harmful result. People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 466; 579 NW2d 868 (1998).
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
When viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that there was
sufficient evidence in this case for a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of seconddegree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It can be inferred that defendant acted with wilful
and wanton disregard that death or great bodily harm would result when defendant lifted up the
hood on his truck, removed a handgun, and shot at least eleven times in the direction of the
victim, who was unarmed and had his back to defendant. The evidence was sufficient to
establish malice.
Defendant argues that he was sufficiently provoked by the escalating argument he had
with the victim and that the incident happened so quickly that he acted under the influence of hot
blood. Thus, more appropriately, he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than
murder. Murder and voluntary manslaughter are both homicides and share the element of being
intentional killings; it is provocation that separates the two crimes. People v Hess, 214 Mich
App 33, 38; 543 NW2d 332 (1995). Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing committed
under the influence of passion or hot blood produced by adequate provocation and before a
reasonable time has passed for the blood to cool. Id. The provocation necessary to mitigate a
homicide from murder to manslaughter is that which would cause the defendant to act out of
passion rather than reason. People v Sullivan, 231 Mich App 510, 518; 586 NW2d 578 (1998)
aff'd 461 Mich 992 (2000). Provocation is adequate only if it would provoke a reasonable man
to commit the act. Id. (emphasis in original). Defendant claims that the argument with and
shoving by the victim were sufficient provocation to mitigate the murder to manslaughter. We
find that the circumstances, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, do not
show that the provocation was so severe as to provoke a reasonable man to shoot eleven times,
with five shots to the victim’s back, in order to break up an argument on his front lawn.
Defendant next argues that trial court committed reversible error because it did not
adequately consider the lesser included offense of manslaughter. We disagree. When reviewing
a claim that, in a bench trial, the court failed to make the proper findings necessary to support a
guilty verdict, we review to determine whether the trial court was aware of the factual issues and
correctly applied the law. People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 384; 465 NW2d 365 (1990);
People v Rushlow, 179 Mich App 172, 177-178; 445 NW2d 222 (1989), aff’d 437 Mich 149
(1991).
When presiding over a bench trial, a judge must decide the facts from the evidence
presented and apply the law to those facts. People v Cazal, 412 Mich 680, 689; 316 NW2d 705
(1982). A judge must articulate the facts on the record along with conclusions of law in
determining the outcome. Id. at 689; MCR 2.517(A)(1). A trial court’s factual findings are
sufficient as long as it appears that the court was aware of the factual issues and correctly applied
the law. People v Legg, 197 Mich App 131, 134; 494 NW2d 797 (1992); People v Edwards, 171
Mich App 613, 620; 431 NW2d 83 (1988). A trial court need not make specific findings
regarding each element of a particular crime, and failure to make specific findings does not
require remand where it is evident that the court was aware of the factual issues, that it resolved
the issues, and that further explanation would not assist review. Legg, supra at 134-135.
Furthermore, a judge sitting as the trier of fact is presumed to render a verdict representing the
correct application of the law to the evidence presented. People v Beard, 171 Mich App 538,
543-544; 431 NW2d 232 (1988).
-2-
Here, in the findings of fact, the trial court discussed the testimony of each of the
witnesses and clearly articulated the evidence in the case. It then made specific findings on each
of the elements of second-degree murder. The trial court also considered the original charge of
first-degree murder, concluding that the requirement of premeditation had not been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. The court was aware of defendant’s request to consider voluntary
manslaughter as it was defendant’s theme throughout the case, defendant had just argued it in his
closing, and specifically requested the court to consider manslaughter instead of murder.
The court was aware of all of the evidence, considered the facts, rejected the charged
offense of first-degree murder, and then specifically concluded that the elements of seconddegree murder had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby correctly applying the
law to the facts of the case. The court was not required to specifically discuss the elements of
manslaughter in its analysis because the court was aware of all of the factual issues, correctly
analyzed the facts of the case using the elements of second-degree murder, and thus resolved the
issues. Legg, supra, 197 Mich App 134-135. Given the above, we need not reverse the trial
court because it sufficiently considered the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-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.
