PEOPLE OF MI V DALRON HARRIS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 182879 LC No. 94-007115 DALRON HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Saad and J. P. Adair,* JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals from his bench trial conviction of larceny over $100, MCL 750.356; MSA 28.588, and his plea of guilty to fourth habitual felony offender, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084. We affirm. We find no merit to defendant’s insufficient evidence argument. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the complainant’s testimony that her twenty-five inch television was worth more than $100 was sufficient to establish that the value of the property stolen exceeded $100. Similarly, in lght of the evidence in this case, the fact that defendant was found in possession of the i stolen television “around the block” from complaint, within minutes after it was reported stolen is sufficient circumstantial evidence that he was the one who stole it. People v Benevides, 71 Mich App 168, 174-175; 247 NW2d 341 (1976). We similarly find no merit to defendant’s argument that the trial court improperly “split” defendant’s prior convictions for carrying a concealed weapon and for conviction of controlled substances, thereby permitting sentencing as a fourth habitual, rather than a third habitual felon. Defendant did not properly preserve this issue for appeal and therefore, we decline to address it. People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 694; 521 NW2d 557 (1994), cert den 513 US ___, 115 S Ct 923, 130 L Ed 2d 802 (1995). In any event, because defendant pleaded guilty to being an habitual fourth offender, the record contains insufficient evidence concerning the prior crimes to permit review of this issue. * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ Affirmed. /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ James P. Adair -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.