PEOPLE OF MI V KEITH LAVALLE CHAPMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 17, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 291524
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 08-030270-FH
KEITH LAVALLE CHAPMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and SAAD and SERVITTO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals, by delayed leave granted, his plea-based convictions of possession of
a firearm by a felon, MCL 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony, second offense, MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant as a third habitual
offender, MCL 769.11, to serve consecutive terms of incarceration of five years in prison for the
felony-firearm conviction, and 210 days for the felon in possession conviction. Because
defendant consented to the search of his home, there was no Fourth Amendment violation, and
we thus affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This case arises from the discovery of a firearm, along with cocaine and drug-trafficking
paraphernalia, in defendant’s home. Defendant moved the trial court to suppress that evidence
on the ground that the police improperly exploited defendant’s status as a probationer and
circumvented the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment by enlisting the participation
of a probation officer, and thus availing themselves of the latter’s broader authority to conduct
warrantless searches of a probationer’s home.
The trial court reviewed the evidence presented at defendant’s preliminary examination,
made the factual determination that defendant had consented to the search, and, after extensive
analysis of the constitutional question, concluded that the police had acted properly in the matter.
Defendant then entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which he retained the option of
presenting his constitutional issue to this Court. See MCR 6.301(C)(2); People v New, 427 Mich
482, 490-491; 398 NW2d 358 (1986).
We conclude that we need not reach the constitutional question, and affirm on the basis
of the trial court’s unchallenged finding that defendant consented to the search. See People v
Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 294; 597 NW2d 1 (1999). Mr. Howell, a supervisor with the
Michigan Department of Corrections Probation Office testified that when he and police arrived
-1-
at defendant’s home and defendant was placed in the back of a police car, he asked defendant for
permission to search his home. Mr. Howell testified that defendant gave him consent to search
his home.
This Court will not reverse when the trial court reaches the correct result regardless of the
reasoning employed. See Porter v Royal Oak, 214 Mich App 478, 488; 542 NW2d 905 (1995).
We avoid reaching constitutional issues if alternative means are available for deciding a case.
See Stewart v Algonac Savings Bank, 263 Mich 272, 284; 248 NW 619 (1933); Rinaldi v Civil
Service Comm, 69 Mich App 58, 69; 244 NW2d 609 (1976) (“We will not undertake a
constitutional analysis when we can avoid it.”).
Defendant has not challenged on appeal the propriety of the trial court’s finding that he
consented to the search. Because that finding remains an unchallenged part of the record below,
we eschew constitutional analysis and affirm the result below on the ground that the challenged
search was rendered constitutionally proper by defendant’s consent.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-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.
