PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT VERMETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 4, 1996
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 178035
LC No. 93-007658
ROBERT VERMETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Marilyn Kelly, P.J., and MacKenzie and J.R. Ernst,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548, and possession
of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). For those respective
convictions, he was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment and two years’ consecutive
imprisonment. He appeals as of right. We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that
his confession was the fruit of an illegal warrantless arrest. People v Burrell, 417 Mich 439, 448; 339
NW2d 403 (1983). At the time of defendant’s arrest, a witness said that a man named “Fletcher”
drove a yellow K-type car like the one used by the shooter in this case. The same witness gave a
description of the driver of the car which fit defendant. Another person (not a witness to the crime) said
that an unnamed source told him that a “Fletch” who lived on a particular street in Dearborn Heights
was involved in the crime. The Dearborn Heights police knew of a “Fletch” who lived on that street
and had the use of a yellow K-type car, and the Dearborn Heights police provided the Detroit police
with defendant’s name as the person using the alias “Fletch” at that address. When the police arrived at
the address, defendant and the car were there. These facts were sufficient to create an honest belief in
the mind of a reasonable and prudent man that the person arrested committed the felony. People v
Thomas, 191 Mich App 576; 478 NW2d 712 (1991); People v O’Neal, 167 Mich App 274; 421
NW2d 662 (1988).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Next, it was appropriate for the trial court to find that defendant’s arraignment was not
unreasonably delayed in violation of MCL 764.13; MSA 28.871(1) and that his second statement was
voluntary. A delay in arraignment is only one factor that should be considered in determining the
voluntariness of a confession. People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 335; 429 NW2d 781 (1988).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
defendant’s statement was voluntary. The delay was not unreasonable given that more than one police
agency was involved. In addition, defendant was advised of his constitutional rights on more than one
occasion and waived them. People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217, 225-226; 530 NW2d 497
(1995). Defendant’s reliance on County of Riverside v McLaughlin, 500 US 44; 111 S Ct 1661;
114 L Ed 2d 49 (1991), is misplaced. That case did not hold that suppression of a confession is the
appropriate remedy for an unreasonable delay. Powell v Nevada, 511 US 79; 114 S Ct 1280; 128 L
Ed 2d 1, 7 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Marilyn Kelly
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ J. Richard Ernst
-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.
