IN RE PATRICK KEILON-JAM MCGEE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of PATRICK KEILON-JAM
MCGEE, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 272256
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-449258-NA
PATRICK KEILON-JAM MCGEE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and White and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent, a juvenile, appeals as of right from an order of disposition entered after he
was adjudicated guilty of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and assault and battery, MCL 750.81.
We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent’s sole claim on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the
verdict. We disagree. We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a
bench trial. People v Lanzo Constr Co, 272 Mich App 470, 473; 726 NW2d 746 (2006). “The
essential elements of an armed robbery are (1) an assault, and (2) a felonious taking of property
from the victim’s person or presence, while (3) the defendant is armed with a weapon described
in the statute.” People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98, 100; 505 NW2d 869 (1993). “An assault may
be established by showing either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act that places
another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery.” People v Starks, 473
Mich 227, 234; 701 NW2d 136 (2005). “Every person concerned in the commission of an
offense, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or procures, counsels, aids,
or abets in its commission may hereafter be prosecuted, indicted, tried and on conviction shall be
punished as if he had directly committed such offense.” MCL 767.39.
The 15-year-old complainant, Leroy Kelly, testified that he and a younger friend, Quion
Jones, were riding their bicycles when they saw respondent, Torris Johnson, and four other boys.
Leroy believed that the boys “were going to assault” him because the group had argued with
Leroy’s mother earlier in the day and had talked about hurting him then. When he saw the boys,
Leroy heard respondent say “we gone get him” more than once. Leroy speeded up on his
bicycle, but the chain slipped, causing him to stop. Quion rode away, trying to get back to his
-1-
house. Respondent and Torris ran up to Leroy. Torris pulled out a gun and told Leroy to get off
his bicycle. Respondent kept saying, “Get him,” and Torris said, “I’m going to shoot him.”
Leroy froze at first and then ran. Respondent chased Leroy, caught up with him, and punched
him more than once in the face. Three of the other boys also chased Leroy. Torris and possibly
one other boy ran the other way with the bicycle. The police returned the bicycle to Leroy later
that day. During cross-examination, respondent’s attorney asked Leroy why, in his statement to
the police, he had not mentioned that respondent had said something at the scene. Leroy
answered, “They did not ask.”
Detroit Police Officer Paul Pesmark testified that Leroy and Quion flagged him down and
said that they had been robbed. The officers canvassed the area and found respondent and Torris
Johnson. Respondent and Torris directed the officers to an alley where the bicycle was found.
Because the bicycle matched the description given by Leroy, the police turned the bicycle over to
him. The officers looked around the area but did not see any sign of a gun.
Torris Johnson testified that before the charged incident took place, Leroy had chased
him with a stick, accusing him of stealing the bicycle, and Leroy’s mother had pulled a knife on
Torris. According to Torris, when he and respondent saw Leroy on the evening in question,
Leroy was standing in front of his aunt’s house and his bicycle was not in the vicinity. Torris
testified that no words were exchanged, and he did not see anything happen with regard to Leroy
and the bicycle that evening. He testified that he saw Leroy on the bicycle later that evening, but
Leroy jumped off the bicycle and left it. According to Torris, several boys picked up the bicycle
and ran away with it. Torris testified that he saw Leroy flag down the police car, and he and
respondent were walking toward respondent’s house when the police pulled up and stopped
them. Torris denied having a gun or telling Leroy to give up his bicycle. He also denied trying
to pick up the bicycle after Leroy had left it on the street.
Respondent did not testify. The trial court concluded that Leroy was a more credible
witness than Torris, and found that Torris had committed the armed robbery. The trial court also
found that respondent had acted in concert with Torris, justifying respondent’s adjudication of
armed robbery.
“[W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a
conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the
crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d
748, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). We defer to the trial court’s superior opportunity to weigh
the evidence, determine witness credibility, and resolve factual disputes. MCR 2.613(C); People
v Cartwright, 454 Mich. 550, 555; 563 NW2d 208 (1997). Applying these standards, Leroy’s
testimony clearly established that Torris committed an armed robbery. Torris pointed a gun at
Leroy and threatened to shoot him, thus placing Leroy in reasonable apprehension of receiving
an immediate battery, and then ordered Leroy to get off his bicycle, thus depriving Leroy of his
property. Leroy testified that while the gun was pointed at him, respondent stood by Torris and
said “get him” several times. Further, when Leroy tried to escape, respondent ran after him and
punched him in the face. This evidence was sufficient to establish that respondent counseled or
aided Torris in the commission of the armed robbery. Regarding respondent’s assault and
battery adjudication, battery is “an intentional, unconsented and harmful or offensive touching of
the person of another, or of something closely connected with the person.” People v Reeves, 458
-2-
Mich 236, 240 n 4; 580 NW2d 433 (1998). Leroy’s testimony established that respondent
intentionally and repeatedly punched Leroy in the face as he tried to escape. This testimony
alone satisfied the elements of for assault and battery. Therefore, the trial court’s adjudication of
guilt was supported by sufficient evidence.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
