PEOPLE OF MI V DEANDRE MAURICE MANLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 18, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 295044
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 09-009249-01
DEANDRE MAURICE MANLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and ZAHRA and DONOFRIO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial convictions for assault with intent to murder,
MCL 750.83, armed robbery, MCL 750.529, felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f,
and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b.
Because the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence on the essential elements of each crime and
because from such evidence a rational fact finder could conclude guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, we affirm defendant’s convictions.
On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient
evidence to support his convictions. This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence in a bench trial. People v Wilkens, 267 Mich App 728, 738; 705 NW2d 728
(2005). The evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine
whether the trial court could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to convict him of assault with intent
to commit murder. The elements of assault with intent to commit murder are (1) an assault, (2)
with an actual intent to kill, (3) which, if successful, would make the killing murder. People v
Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 53; 549 NW2d 1 (1996). 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. People v Nickens, 470 Mich 622, 628; 685 NW2d 657 (2004). Moreover, a
battery is an intentional, unconsented, and harmful or offensive touching of the person. Id.
Assault with intent to commit murder requires specific intent to kill. People v Brown, 267 Mich
App 141, 148; 703 NW2d 230 (2005). A person’s intent to kill may be inferred from any facts in
evidence, including the use of a deadly weapon at close range. People v Ray, 56 Mich App 610,
615; 224 NW2d 735 (1974).
-1-
Here, Elijah McKinney testified that defendant placed a gun to his head and pulled the
trigger, but that the gun malfunctioned and no bullet discharged. This testimony was sufficient
for a reasonable fact finder to find all the elements of assault with intent to commit murder. That
is, the evidence shows that defendant assaulted McKinney, with the intent to kill which, if
successful, would have made the killing murder.
Defendant next contends there was insufficient evidence to convict him of armed
robbery. “The essential elements of an armed robbery are (1) an assault, and (2) a felonious
taking of property from the victim’s person or presence, while (3) the defendant is armed with a
weapon described in the statute.” People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98, 100; 505 NW2d 869
(1993). In this case, McKinney testified that defendant placed a gun to his head and demanded
that McKinney turn over all his belongings. McKinney stated that defendant hit him in the head
with the handgun and took his belongings from his pockets. According to McKinney, defendant
took $400 and two cell phones from his pockets. This evidence is sufficient for the trial court, as
the trier of fact, to find all the elements of armed robbery.
Defendant was also convicted of felon in possession pursuant to MCL 750.224f, which
provides, in relevant part: “[a] person convicted of a specified felony shall not possess . . . a
firearm in this state . . . .” MCL 750.224f(2). Defendant argues that there was insufficient
evidence to convict him of felon in possession. At trial, the parties stipulated to defendant’s
prior felony convictions. In addition, McKinney testified that defendant possessed a handgun,
which he used to strike McKinney on the head. McKinney also testified that defendant used a
gun when attempting to shoot him. Again, this evidence is sufficient for the trial court, as the
trier of fact, to find all the elements of felon in possession.
Defendant also contends there was insufficient evidence to convict him of felony-firearm.
The elements of felony-firearm are: (1) the possession of a firearm (2) during the commission of,
or the attempt to commit, a felony. People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 505; 597 NW2d 864
(1999). In the present case, there is testimony from McKinney that defendant possessed a
handgun. McKinney further stated that defendant possessed this handgun when he took
McKinney’s belongings and attempted to shoot him. This evidence is sufficient for a rational
trier of fact to find that defendant possessed a gun during the commission of a felony, i.e. assault
with intent to murder and armed robbery.
Defendant next argues that the many inconsistencies in McKinney’s testimony brought
his credibility into question. McKinney testified that he told the patrons at the motorcycle club
and the investigating police officers that defendant was the shooter. However, he also stated, at
trial, that the shooter was in fact defendant’s partner whose name he did not know. Still, Alicia
Randall testified that McKinney told her that “Dre” shot him. According to Officer Willie King,
McKinney also identified defendant as the shooter. The trial court found McKinney’s testimony
“interesting.” The trial court noted that each time McKinney told his story he would lessen
defendant’s role in the shooting. That is, McKinney first stated that defendant shot him but later
stated that defendant’s friend shot him.
The trial court found that, despite McKinney’s inconsistent testimony regarding who
fired the shot, McKinney’s trial testimony was still sufficient to find defendant guilty on the four
counts. The trial court found that the critical testimony was that defendant put a gun to
-2-
McKinney’s head and pulled the trigger (albeit no bullet discharged) and that this evidence was
credible. The trial court also found that, despite Delanea Porter’s testimony, defendant was the
one who committed the crime. When there is conflicting testimony, the question of witness
credibility ordinarily should be left for the trier of fact. People v Farrow, 461 Mich 202, 209;
600 NW2d 634 (1999) (the trial court’s “resolution of a factual issue is entitled to deference,”
particularly where it “involves the credibility of the witnesses whose testimony is in conflict”).
We will not interfere with the trier of fact’s role in determining the credibility of the witnesses or
the weight of the evidence. People v Williams, 268 Mich App 416, 419; 707 NW2d 624 (2005).
When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact
could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offenses of assault with
intent to murder, armed robbery, felon in possession, and felony-firearm.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.
