PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIAM PHILLIPS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 12, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 230136
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-011911
WILLIAM PHILLIPS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his convictions of larceny over $100, MCL 750.356,
and assault and battery, MCL 750.81, entered after a bench trial. We affirm.
Defendant was charged with unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530, and assault and battery
arising out of an incident involving complainant, his former girlfriend. Complainant testified
that defendant came to her place of employment, a group home for mentally challenged persons,
and demanded entrance. Defendant gained entrance to the facility by a method unknown to
complainant. Complainant testified that defendant hit her several times in the face, took a gold
chain valued at $300 from around her neck, grabbed her purse, and left the facility. The purse,
but not the chain, was returned to complainant’s home later in the day. Defendant testified that
complainant admitted him to the facility and gave him the chain when he asked for it. He denied
striking complainant.
The trial court acquitted defendant of unarmed robbery, but found him guilty of the lesser
included offense of larceny over $1001 and assault and battery. The court found the testimony
given by complainant more credible than that given by defendant.
1
The trial court referred to the offense as larceny from a person, MCL 750.357, but it is clear
from the record that the court convicted defendant of larceny over $100. Larceny from a person
carries a maximum term of ten years in prison. At sentencing, the court noted that it could
impose a maximum term of five years in prison, the term applicable to the offense of larceny
over $100 prior to the amendment of MCL 750.356 in 1998. See 1988 PA 311. The offenses of
larceny over $100 and larceny from a person share many of the same elements. However,
larceny over $100 requires a showing that the fair market value of the property exceeded $100 at
(continued…)
-1-
On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his
convictions. We disagree. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a
bench trial, we view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and
determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 268-270; 380 NW2d 11
(1985). The trier of fact may make reasonable inferences from evidence in the record, but may
not make inferences completely unsupported by any direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. at
275; People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 379-380; 465 NW2d 365 (1990).
In a bench trial, the court must make findings of fact and state separately its conclusions
of law. MCR 6.403. Findings are sufficient if it appears that the court was aware of the issues
and correctly applied the law. People v Smith, 211 Mich App 233, 235; 535 NW2d 248 (1995).
We review a trial court’s findings of fact for clear error. MCR 2.613(C); People v Hermiz, 235
Mich App 248, 255; 597 NW2d 218 (1999), aff’d by equal division 462 Mich 71; 611 NW2d
783 (2000).
The elements of larceny over $100 are: (1) that the defendant took someone else’s
property; (2) that the property was taken without consent; (3) that there was some movement of
the property; (4) that at the time the property was taken, the defendant intended to deprive the
owner of it permanently; and (5) that the property had a fair market value of more than $100 at
the time it was taken. CJI2d 23.1.2 An “assault is either an attempt to commit a battery or an
unlawful act that places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery.
A battery is the consummation of an assault.” People v Terry, 217 Mich App 660, 662; 553
NW2d 23 (1996).
Here, complainant testified that she did not know how defendant gained entrance to her
place of employment, which was secured by a locked door. Nevertheless, the undisputed
evidence established that defendant entered the facility. Complainant’s testimony, which the
trial court was entitled to believe, People v Marji, 180 Mich App 525, 542; 447 NW2d 835
(1989), established that defendant struck complainant several times, took her property, including
a chain valued at $300, and left the facility. Defendant’s intent to deprive complainant of the
chain on a permanent basis can be inferred from the evidence that complainant’s purse, but not
the chain, was returned. People v Beaudin, 417 Mich 570, 575; 339 NW2d 461 (1983). The
evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to support
defendant’s convictions of larceny over $100 and assault and battery. Petrella, supra.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
(…continued)
the time it was taken. See infra.
2
The incident which resulted in the charges against defendant occurred in 1998, prior to the
effective date of the amended version of MCL 750.356.
-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.
