PEOPLE OF MI V DONALD W ROBINSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 26, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 237013
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-009844-01
DONALD W. ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for attempt to operate a chop
shop, MCL 750.535a(2). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. In
determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a reviewing
court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine whether
any rational finder of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441
Mich 1201 (1992).
MCL 750.535a(2) provides that a person who knowingly owns, operates, or conducts a
chop shop or who knowingly abets another person in owning, operating, or conducting a chop
shop is guilty of a felony. MCL 750.535a(1)(b) states:
“Chop shop” means any of the following:
(i) Any area, building, storage lot, field, or other premises or place where
1 or more persons are engaged or have engaged in altering, dismantling,
reassembling, or in any way concealing or disguising the identity of a stolen
motor vehicle or of any major component part of a stolen motor vehicle.
At the location of defendant’s arrest, police found two partially dismantled stolen
vehicles there, one of which was owned by defendant’s mother. The parts of the vehicles were
found at the same location, indicating that the dismantling had taken place at that location.
Defendant knew that his mother’s van was stolen. Defendant was found at the location, with
-1-
tools in his hand, walking towards one of the stolen vehicles. We hold that the evidence was
sufficient to support defendant’s conviction.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Henry William Saadd
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.