PEOPLE OF MI V TROY MICHAEL OMEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 6, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 281580
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 06-012287-FC
TROY MICHAEL OMEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 281581
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 06-012288-FC
TROY MICHAEL OMEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 281582
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 06-012289-FC
TROY MICHAEL OMEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 281583
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 06-012292-FC
TROY MICHAEL OMEY,
-1-
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 281584
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 06-012293-FC
TROY MICHAEL OMEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 281585
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 06-012294-FC
TROY MICHAEL OMEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 281586
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 06-012295-FC
TROY MICHAEL OMEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Gleicher and M.J. Kelly, JJ.
MURRAY, J. (concurrence).
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately only to state two brief points. One,
with respect to our reversal of four of defendant’s CSC II convictions, the prosecutor’s brief on
appeal did not segregate out what evidence supported each particular charge, instead simply
arguing that the testimony from the victims established that the criminal sexual conduct occurred
repeatedly over a number of years. This has made it very difficult to search out the facts
supporting (or not) the particular charges. See People v Kevorkian, 248 Mich App 373, 389; 639
-2-
NW2d 291 (2001). And, in arguing for affirmance, the prosecution relied only upon the
concurring/dissenting opinion joined by two justices in People v Nix, 479 Mich 112, 143; 734
NW2d 548 (2007), and no other case. For this reason, and for that already stated by the majority,
I concur in the partial reversal. Second, although I certainly appreciate the thoroughness of the
majority opinion in addressing defendant’s sentencing issues, I would not address those issues
because, as the majority recognizes, defendant did not raise these issues in the trial court or, with
respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim premised upon the alleged scoring errors, in
the delayed application for leave to appeal. These issues are simply not properly before this
Court, and so I would affirm the sentences without further elaboration.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.