PEOPLE OF MI V TONY R LAWSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 10, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 247855
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-006574-01
TONY R. LAWSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant Tony R. Lawson appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for first-degree
home invasion.1 Defendant was sentenced to five to twenty years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
I. Facts and Procedural History
On May 16, 2001, Amanda Gillman walked into her living room and saw a man standing
in the room with his back to her. The man was trying to unlock the front door and leave the
home. Ms. Gillman described the man to Sumpter Township police officer Jerry Massey as a
200-pound white male, between 5 feet 10 inches and six feet tall, wearing a baseball cap, dark
colored shirt, tennis shoes and blue jeans. From behind, the man appeared to be either bald or
had very short hair. Officer Massey called the description in and was told that a suspect was
being held a few blocks away at the intersection of Delaware and Ohio. Ms. Gillman was taken
to the intersection and positively identified defendant from the back as the man she saw in her
living room. When defendant was arrested he was wearing a white hat, a black and white plaid
shirt, blue jeans and tennis shoes. Officers remarked that from behind it appeared as though he
was bald. Following the arrest, a canine tracking unit tracked from Ms. Gillman’s home to the
intersection of Delaware and Ohio.
Defendant was arraigned on June 20, 2001. He failed to appear for the final conference
on July 27, 2001, and a capias was issued. He was arrested and arraigned on the capias on
February 13, 2002. On April 19, 2002, defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to
1
MCL 750.110a(2).
-1-
a jury trial on the record. Defendant then failed to appear for his June 6, 2002, bench trial and
another capias was issued. On November 27, 2002, a bench warrant was issued for defendant’s
arrest. Defendant was arrested on January 10, 2003, and remanded to Wayne County Jail
without bond. That day, defendant requested and was granted substitute counsel. His request to
withdraw his jury trial waiver was, however, not addressed. Defendant again requested a jury
trial on January 31, 2003, which request was denied. His bench trial finally began on February
11, 2003.
II. Waiver of Jury Trial
Defendant argues that the court abused its discretion when it refused to grant the
withdrawal of his waiver of jury. We disagree. The trial court’s decision is reviewed on appeal
for an abuse of discretion.2
Both the Federal and the Michigan Constitutions guarantee “the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury. . . .”3 Trial by jury is a fundamental right of the American
scheme of justice.4 A defendant must waive his right to a jury trial voluntarily and knowingly.5
As a general rule, a valid waiver cannot be withdrawn, except in the discretion of the court.6 It is
proper to deny a request to withdraw a waiver if there is evidence of judge shopping or an
attempt to delay trial.7
Defendant originally delayed his trial by failing to appear for his bench trial on June 6,
2002. The court had previously recorded his valid waiver on April 19, 2002. It is clear from the
record that defendant understood he had a right to a jury trial and that he voluntarily decided to
waive that right. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the request.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant also argues that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to establish
that he was the man inside Ms. Gillman’s home. We disagree. In sufficiency of the evidence
claims, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
determines whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were
2
People v Wagner, 114 Mich App 541, 559; 320 NW2d 251 (1982), quoting 47 Am Jur 2d, Jury,
§ 67, pp 684-685.
3
US Const, Ams VI, XIV; Const 1963, art 1, § 20.
4
Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US 145, 149; 88 S Ct 1444; 20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968).
5
MCL 763.3(1).
6
Wagner, supra at 558-559, quoting 47 Am Jur 2d, Jury, § 67, pp 684-685.
7
Id.
-2-
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.8 “[C]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences
arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime.”9
To obtain a conviction for first-degree home invasion the prosecution must show that the
defendant is:
A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a felony,
larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a person who enters a dwelling without
permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a
person who breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission
and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling,
commits a felony, larceny, or assault is guilty of home invasion in the first degree
if at any time while the person is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling
either of the following circumstances exists:
***
(b) Another person is lawfully present in the dwelling.[10]
Ms. Gillman saw defendant in her home in close proximity and provided a specific
description to Officer Massey. Minutes later, she positively identified defendant from the back.
Ms. Gillman’s description of the intruder very closely matched defendant’s actual appearance.
Furthermore, the canine unit tracked from Ms. Gillman’s home to the intersection of Delaware
and Ohio where defendant was apprehended. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find that defendant unlawfully entered Ms.
Gillman’s home.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
8
People v Hunter, 466 Mich 1, 6; 643 NW2d 218 (2002).
9
People v Lee, 243 Mich App 163, 167-168; 622 NW2d 71 (2000).
10
People v Sands, 261 Mich App 158, 162; 680 NW2d 500 (2004), quoting MCL 750.110a(2).
-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.
