PEOPLE OF MI V RICARDO STILLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 20, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 282223
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-216096-FH
RICARDO STILLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and O’Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
After a jury trial, defendant Ricardo Stille was convicted of one count of first-degree
retail fraud, MCL 750.356c, one count of resisting and obstructing a police officer,
MCL 750.81d(1), and one count of receiving or concealing stolen property, MCL 750.535(4)(a).
He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to consecutive sentences of threeand-a-half to twenty years’ imprisonment for the retail fraud conviction and three-and-a-half to
fifteen years’ imprisonment for the resisting and obstructing conviction, and he received time
served for the receiving or concealing stolen property conviction. We affirm. This appeal has
been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On August 4, 2007, defendant entered an ABC Warehouse store in Novi with a Bose SA3
amplifier box sealed with clear packing tape. Instead of a Bose amplifier and its Styrofoam
packaging, the box contained scrap metal. Defendant asked Chad Morrow, the store manager,
for speakers to use with a Bose amplifier. Morrow went to get the speakers, which were located
in a locked area of the store, and defendant was left alone in the audio department. When
Morrow was gone, defendant switched the Bose amplifier box that he was carrying with a Bose
amplifier box located on a store shelf. When Morrow returned, defendant stated that he needed
to go to his car to get his girlfriend and his credit card. Defendant then left the store carrying the
box containing a Bose amplifier, leaving the box filled with scrap metal that he had brought into
the store on the shelf.
Joseph Kassis, an employee stationed near the front door, had not seen defendant enter
the store and became suspicious when he saw defendant leave the store with the Bose amplifier
box and without a visible receipt. Kassis stopped defendant and asked to see his receipt.
Defendant replied that he had purchased the amplifier, but the receipt was in the car. Kassis
followed defendant to his car, where defendant produced a valid receipt for the amplifier from
-1-
ABC Warehouse’s store in Farmington Hills.1 Defendant drove off in his silver Cadillac, and
Kassis reported the situation to Morrow.
As Kassis was interacting with defendant in the parking lot, Morrow recalled a corporate
email issued a week earlier warning employees that a black male driving a silver Cadillac had
been spotted taking pieces of Bose equipment from various ABC Warehouse stores. The email
warned that this individual often left the store after telling employees that he had to get his
girlfriend and credit card from the car. After Kassis returned to the store, Morrow spoke with
him regarding defendant. Morrow then decided to check the Bose amplifier box located on the
store shelf in the audio department. He opened the box and discovered that it only contained
scrap metal. Morrow immediately issued an email alert to the other stores warning them of the
unlawful taking.
Bruce Gorman, the assistant manager of the Farmington Hills store, received the email.
Soon thereafter, defendant entered the store and asked to return the Bose amplifier in his
possession. Defendant provided a receipt from the Farmington Hills store when Gorman
requested one. Gorman also opened the box and noticed that it contained an amplifier.
However, Gorman was still suspicious of defendant and called the police.
Eric Buckberry, an officer with the Farmington Hills police, talked with defendant soon
after he arrived at the store. After Buckberry and another officer placed defendant in the
backseat of a police cruiser, Buckberry looked through the window of defendant’s Cadillac. He
saw what appeared to be an amplifier and Styrofoam packaging lying on the floor.2 Defendant
resisted the officers’ attempts to open his car and to arrest him; he only cooperated after he was
informed that he would be tasered if he continued to resist.
On appeal, defendant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain the
ABC Warehouse receipt that defendant had in his possession at the time of his arrest and offer it
into evidence. We disagree. Because defendant did not move for a new trial or a Ginther3
hearing on this ground before the trial court, our review is limited to mistakes apparent on the
record. People v Cox, 268 Mich App 440, 453; 709 NW2d 152 (2005).
“Whether a person has been denied effective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of
fact and constitutional law. A judge first must find the facts, and then must decide whether those
facts constitute a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to effective assistance of
counsel.” People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). We review questions
of fact for clear error and questions of constitutional law de novo. Id.
Effective assistance of counsel is presumed, and the defendant bears a heavy
burden of proving otherwise. In order to overcome this presumption, defendant
must first show that counsel’s performance was deficient as measured against an
1
Nobody was in defendant’s car.
2
Packing tape was later discovered in the car as well.
3
People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).
-2-
objective standard of reasonableness under the circumstances and according to
prevailing professional norms. Second, defendant must show that the deficiency
was so prejudicial that he was deprived of a fair trial such that there is a
reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the trial
outcome would have been different. [People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 625;
709 NW2d 595 (2005), quoting People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 663664; 683 NW2d 761 (2004) (internal citations omitted).]
Defendant fails to overcome the presumption that his counsel’s decision not to enter the
receipt into evidence was a matter of trial strategy and that, as a result, his actions did not
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See People v Marcus Davis, 250 Mich App 357,
368; 649 NW2d 94 (2002) (“Decisions regarding what evidence to present and whether to call or
question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy, and this Court will not substitute
its judgment for that of counsel regarding matters of trial strategy.”) The record indicates that
numerous witnesses testified that the receipt in question was valid. Assuming that the receipt is,
in fact, valid, it would merely confirm the underlying assumption regarding the receipt’s validity
presented by witnesses.4 In addition, the receipt indicated that another individual besides
defendant purchased the amplifier and paid for it with cash. Thus, the receipt does not support a
claim that defendant purchased a Bose amplifier.
In addition, defendant fails to establish that the outcome would have been different if the
jury had been permitted to see the receipt. Defendant would still be faced with the fact that he
was apprehended with two SA3 amplifiers, one box, and one receipt. Considering that the
evidence presented at trial indicates that defendant switched a box containing a Bose amplifier
with a similar box containing scrap metal, and that a Bose amplifier and packing material, but no
corresponding box, were found in defendant’s car, admission of a receipt indicating that an
individual besides defendant purchased one Bose amplifier is superfluous and probably would
not affect a jury’s determination regarding the resisting and obstructing charge.
Defendant also appears to argue that his counsel should have challenged the prosecutor
for impermissibly shifting the burden of proof by telling the jury during closing arguments that
defendant never provided a second receipt. However, defendant cannot show that any error was
outcome-determinative where defense counsel and the trial court both properly instructed the
jury that defendant did not have to prove anything. See People v Graves, 458 Mich 476, 486;
581 NW2d 229 (1998) (noting that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, and that such
instructions are presumed to cure most errors).
4
Of course, if any unusual markings or information on the receipt might lead jurors to believe
that the receipt was not authentic, this evidence could support the jurors’ conclusion that
defendant engaged in fraudulent behavior.
-3-
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-4-
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.
