PEOPLE OF MI V RALPH J GONZALES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 30, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 206107
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-005455
RALPH J. GONZALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and J. R. Cooper*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his conviction of breaking and entering an unoccupied dwelling,
MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305, entered after a bench trial. We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The charge against defendant arose out of his removal of several items from a duplex where he
had been working. Defendant was discharged from his employment, and upon his termination, he
refused to surrender the keys to the premises, and said that he would get even for the discharge. A
week after the discharge, defendant was apprehended removing buckets of paint, a cabinet, and a sink
from the duplex. Defendant admitted entering the premises and taking the paint. He claimed that he
only returned to get his tools, and that once in the duplex, he decided to take the paint because the
owner owed him money. The court found defendant guilty of breaking and entering an unoccupied
dwelling.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court’s findings of fact are erroneous, and that there is
insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree.
Findings of fact are reviewed in the context of the evidence presented, and must be sufficient to
show that the trial court was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law. People v
Legg, 197 Mich App 131, 134; 494 NW2d 797 (1992). A court’s failure to find facts does not
require remand where it is manifest that the court was aware of the factual issues, resolved the issues,
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
and that further explication would not facilitate appellate review. Id. Here, the court reviewed the
evidence prior to issuing its decision, and found that defendant refused to
-2
surrender the keys and said he would get even for his firing. This finding indicates that the court was
aware of defendant’s claim of right and lack of intent issues, and rejected these defenses. The findings
are sufficient for appellate review.
When determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a
court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any
rational finder of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). Here, the testimony
regarding defendant’s refusal to surrender the keys, and his statement that he would get even are
sufficient evidence to defeat his claim that he took the property as a matter of right, and that he lacked
the intent to commit larceny. A rational finder of fact could have found the elements of the crime were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-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.
