PEOPLE OF MI V MARLEX DANGELO SHEPARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 6, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 235131
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 00-001838-FC
MARLEX DANGELO SHEPARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Cavanagh and Bandstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts each of assault with a
dangerous weapon, MCL 750.82, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,
MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve concurrent terms of nine months to
four years’ imprisonment for the assault with a dangerous weapon convictions, to be preceded by
two year terms for his convictions of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the defense of
accident, by giving confusing and misleading instructions regarding escape and intent, and by
giving unclear subsequent clarifying instructions. We note, however, that defense counsel did
not request that an instruction on accident be given, and explicitly expressed satisfaction with the
instructions given to the jury, which included the instructions regarding intent and escape, and
excluded an accident instruction. Defense counsel also expressly approved the trial court’s
clarifying instructions given in response to the jury’s inquiries. Consequently, defendant has
waived the right to assert a claim of instructional error. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 213216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (one who waives his rights may not seek appellate review of a
claimed deprivation of those rights, for his waiver extinguishes any error).
Nonetheless, even if there had been objections, they would have been fruitless. Our
review of the challenged instruction of the jury adequately stated the law. As to the instruction
on accident that defendant now argues for, had defense counsel requested such an instruction, it
would have been denied as unsupported by the evidence. People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 80-81;
537 NW2d 909 (1995). Defendant presented no argument or evidence to establish that his
-1-
shooting of the gun was an accident; his defense was, instead, that he had no involvement
whatsoever with the shooting.
We affirm.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
-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.
