PEOPLE OF MI V DONALD WILLIAM ESSENMACHER

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED October 23, 2007 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 273371 St. Clair Circuit Court LC No. 06-000631-FH DONALD WILLIAM ESSENMACHER, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Zahra, P.J., and White and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial convictions of possession of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii), maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(1)(d), failure to present a weapon for safety inspection, MCL 750.228, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his felony-firearm conviction. We disagree and affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E). In February 2006, police stopped and detained defendant after he left his Port Huron apartment. During the subsequent search of his apartment (pursuant to a search warrant), police found a gun cabinet that contained three firearms, two pills, marijuana, and various drug paraphernalia. Marijuana and drug paraphernalia were also found elsewhere in the apartment. A field test of the two pills showed that they contained methamphetamine. A later laboratory analysis of one of the pills showed that it contained both methamphetamine and 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetime, or MDMA, which is commonly known as Ecstasy. Defendant admitted that the two pills, the marijuana, and the guns were his. He also testified that he regularly kept the gun cabinet locked and that he had not opened it on the day of the search. Defendant’s girlfriend testified that the cabinet was locked and that she provided the police with a key during the search. Defendant acknowledges that under People v Burgenmeyer 461 Mich 431; 606 NW2d 645 (2000), the evidence was sufficient to support his felony-firearm conviction. However, he argues that Burgenmeyer is at odds with the goals of the felony-firearm statute and thus should be ignored. However, “[i]t is the Supreme Court’s obligation to overrule or modify case law if it becomes obsolete, and until [that] Court takes such action, the Court of Appeals and all lower courts are bound by that authority.” Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515, 523; 505 NW2d -1- 544 (1993); overruled on other grounds Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28; 732 NW2d 56 (2007); see also Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp, 271 Mich App 503, 510; 722 NW2d 666 (2006) (observing that this Court is “bound by the Supreme Court’s clear directives”). Thus, by defendant’s own admission, sufficient evidence was adduced to support his felony-firearm conviction under binding authority. Affirmed. /s/ Brian K. Zahra /s/ Helene N. White /s/ Peter D. O’Connell -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.