PEOPLE OF MI V MORRIS FELTON JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 5, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 247857
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 02-007419-FH
MORRIS FELTON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his conviction of unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530, entered
after a jury trial. We affirm.
Complainant’s purse was stolen by a person she testified was similar in appearance to
defendant. A search of the vehicle owned by a woman arrested for trespassing revealed various
items that belonged to complainant. The woman told the police that she obtained the items from
defendant. Police were given a tip that defendant could be located at a carnival, and he was
arrested. His duffel bag contained several items belonging to complainant, items belonging to
another woman, and drug paraphernalia. A witness testified that her purse had been stolen, and
she identified photographs of some items belonging to her that were found in defendant’s bag.
Defendant admitted that various items found in his bag did not belong to him and that he knew
the items were stolen, but maintained that the items had been given to him as collateral for a
loan. Defendant denied that he robbed complainant, but admitted that he used her ATM card in
an unsuccessful attempt to obtain cash.
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove the character of a
person in order to show that he acted in conformity with it, but may be admissible for other
purposes, such as to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or
system in doing an act, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. MRE 404(b)(1).
The other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be contemporaneous with or prior to or subsequent to the
conduct at issue. Id. Other acts evidence must be offered for a proper purpose, must be relevant,
and its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.
A proper purpose is one other than establishing the defendant’s character to show his propensity
to commit the offense. People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 496; 577 NW2d 673 (1998).
-1-
Evidence of misconduct similar to that charged is logically relevant to show that the
charged acts occurred if the charged acts and the other acts are sufficiently similar to support an
inference that they are the manifestations of a common plan, scheme, or design. The charged
acts and the other acts need not be parts of a single continuing plot; however, there must be such
a concurrence of common features so that the charged acts and the other acts are logically seen
as part of a general plan, scheme, or design. People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 6366; 614 NW2d 888 (2000). The admissibility of other acts evidence is within the discretion of
the trial court. People v Crawford, 458 Mich 376, 383; 582 NW2d 785 (1998).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional
norms. Counsel must have made errors so serious that he was not performing as the “counsel”
guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20;
People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 599-600; 623 NW2d 884 (2001). Counsel’s deficient
performance must have resulted in prejudice. To demonstrate the existence of prejudice, a
defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the
proceedings would have been different. Carbin, supra at 600.
Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial due to the admission of unduly
prejudicial other acts evidence, and that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to
object to the evidence or request an instruction on its proper use. We disagree and affirm.
Defendant asserted that the stolen items found in this bag were given to him by others, and that
he did not rob complainant. The similarity between evidence pertaining to the charged act and
evidence pertaining to the other act, i.e., that defendant had items belonging to complainant and
another witness in his bag, was sufficient to demonstrate that the charged act and the other act
were part of a common plan or scheme, i.e., to take purses and thereafter carry items from the
purses in his bag. Sabin, supra. The evidence that defendant had stolen items belonging to
another person was offered for a proper purpose, Starr, supra, and made it more likely than not
that defendant robbed complainant. MRE 401. This evidence, coupled with complainant’s
testimony that defendant’s appearance was similar to that of the person who robbed her and the
arrested woman’s testimony that the purse defendant brought to her vehicle was similar in
appearance to one she had seen carried by a woman only minutes before defendant arrived,
supported a finding that defendant robbed complainant. The evidence was properly admitted
under MRE 404(b)(1). Defendant has not shown that trial counsel’s failure to object to the other
acts evidence, including the evidence that he carried drug paraphernalia, or to request an
instruction on its use resulted in prejudice. Specifically, he has not shown that, but for counsel’s
alleged error, it is reasonably probable that the result of the proceedings would have been
different. Carbin, supra. No plain error occurred. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764;
597 NW2d 130 (1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
