PEOPLE OF MI V MATTHEW C VANCENA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 22, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 246019
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-006499
MATTHEW C. VANCENA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Zahra and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant was charged with three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL
750.520c(1)(a), and one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e(1)(a).
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of third-degree CSC and one count
of fourth-degree CSC, for which he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 5½ to 15 years
and one to two years, respectively. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in declining to rule on his
motion for a bill of particulars regarding the dates of each offense. We disagree.
Defendant was charged with committing the offenses between November 1, 1997 to
December 20, 1998. He brought a motion for greater specificity as to the date of each offense.
However, he did not ask that the information be amended to allege a discrete, specific date for
each offense but sought to restrict the proofs at trial to the dates specified by the complainant at
the preliminary examination. When the court indicated that it was not sure it had authority to
grant such a request, defendant asked for time to research the issue. The court agreed to let
defendant research the issue and raise it again if his research indicated that the court’s impression
was incorrect. Defendant responded, “That would be fine.” Because defendant approved of the
manner in which the court handled his motion, he has waived any claim of error. People v
Carter, 462 Mich 206, 219-220; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-1-
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.