PEOPLE OF MI V LENERO ANTHONY THOMAS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 23, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 280728
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 06-010405-FH
LENERO ANTHONY THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by right his jury convictions of larceny in a building, MCL 750.360,
and aggravated assault, MCL 750.81a. Defendant was sentenced as a third habitual offender,
MCL 769.11, to two to eight years in prison for larceny, and to pay a $100 fine for the assault
conviction. We affirm.
Defendant’s convictions resulted from his assault of Charla Burkett. Defendant violently
assaulted Burkett in her apartment when she could not remove a ring she was wearing that had
apparently been gifted to her by her previous fiancé. Later, under the cover of running water as
defendant filled the apartment’s bathtub, Burkett left and went to a neighbor’s home where she
called the police. When she returned, she discovered that her rent check and approximately $120
were missing from her purse. Police later apprehended defendant when he attempted to return to
Burkett’s apartment. The police found $126 in cash and the check in defendant’s possession.
On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to
support his conviction of larceny. We disagree.
We review a defendant’s allegations regarding insufficiency of the evidence de novo.
People v Herndon, 246 Mich App 371, 415; 633 NW2d 376 (2001). We view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find
that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We will not
interfere with the jury’s role of determining the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the
witnesses. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1201
(1992). Satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime can be shown by circumstantial evidence
and reasonable inferences arising therefrom. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d
130 (1999). All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v
Terry, 224 Mich App 447, 452; 569 NW2d 641 (1997).
-1-
The elements of larceny in a building are: (1) the actual or constructive taking of goods
or property of another, (2) without the consent and against the will of the owner, (3) a carrying
away or asportation of the goods, (4) with felonious intent, and (5) the taking occurred within the
confines of the building. MCL 750.360; People v Sykes, 229 Mich App 254, 278; 582 NW2d
197 (1998). Defendant argues that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence that he
took the money with an intent to permanently deprive Burkett of it. However, because of the
difficulty of proving an actor’s state of mind, minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
establish the element of intent. People v McRunels, 237 Mich App 168, 181; 603 NW2d 95
(1999). At trial, the prosecution presented defendant’s letter to Burkett in which he admitted that
he took the money “out of anger and revenge.” This was sufficient to establish that, at the time
of the taking, defendant intended to permanently deprive Burkett of the property, and thus that he
had felonious intent. The prosecutor was not required to disprove defendant’s trial theory that
defendant took Burkett’s money and check because he did not want her to spend it on her drug
habit. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).
Defendant also argues that the trial court inappropriately relied on inaccurate information
during sentencing.
Defendant’s sentence fell within the properly scored guidelines.
Accordingly, we are required to affirm defendant’s sentence unless the trial court erred in
scoring the guidelines or relied on inaccurate information. MCL 769.34(10). Here, prior to
sentencing, the prosecution presented the trial court with a letter written to Burkett by defendant.
According to the prosecutor, Burkett had given the letter to the prosecutor and had stated that she
had “fears and concerns that Mr. Thomas admits that he beats women, enjoys beating women,
will continue to beat women, and for some warped reason thinks it is his purpose bestowed upon
him by God to beat women in order to educate them.” Although defendant’s argument is
somewhat unclear, he appears to argue now that the trial court took this letter out of context and
did not provide defendant with an opportunity to explain it to the court before sentencing.
Defendant is not challenging the validity of the letters he wrote to Burkett. His challenge
runs instead to the trial court’s interpretation of those letters. Defendant, however, cannot show
that the trial court relied on “inaccurate information” during sentencing and is not entitled to
relief on this ground. In fact, defendant’s words support a conclusion that he thinks part of
God’s will is for him to “chastise” women that he “loves” in order to help them. The record
supports the trial court’s finding that defendant’s actions were consistent with a mistaken belief
that he was doing the right thing when he beat the victim.
Defendant’s assertion that the trial court did not allow him to respond during sentencing
is likewise without merit. The trial court asked defendant to respond to items in the presentence
report or to “any other matter.” In response, defendant indicated that he had written a letter and
asked the trial court to read it. The trial court did so and summarized its contents on the record.
Defendant is not entitled to resentencing.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
