PEOPLE OF MI V MALCOLM P COLEMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2006
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 261844
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2004-195185-FC
MALCOLM P. COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Saad and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of one count of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and one count of
first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), after a jury trial. Defendant was sentenced as a
habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11, to serve concurrent prison terms of 25 to 50 years
for the armed robbery conviction and 20 to 40 years for the first-degree home invasion
conviction. Those sentences were to be served consecutively to his parole violation. Defendant
appeals as of right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
I. FACTS
Defendant and codefendant, Randy Stradley, without being invited, entered into the home
of Sam and Minnie Berman. They taped the couples’ feet and hands and took from the home
jewelry and $5,600 in cash.
Prior to charging the jury, the trial court discussed the jury instructions that were to be
read. When the trial court asked if the proposed instructions were correct, defense counsel
replied, “Sounds fine.” After the instructions were given, the trial court asked the attorneys
whether they were satisfied with the instructions. Defense counsel replied, “Yes, Your Honor.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defense counsel consented to the jury instructions given by the court, thereby waiving
this issue. This Court need not review issues that have been waived.
III. ANALYSIS
-1-
Defendant argues that his constitutional right to a jury trial was violated because the trial
court improperly instructed the jury. Defendant raises two separate issues involving the
instructions. However, these issues have been waived because defense counsel expressed
satisfaction with the instructions given by the trial court. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215;
612 NW2d 144 (2000). A criminal defendant may forfeit a right by failing to timely assert it, but
a forfeited right may still be reviewed for plain error, while the intentional relinquishment of a
known right constitutes a waiver, which extinguishes the error. Id. at 215-216.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
