From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Staton

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 24, 2017
No. 329926 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2017)

Opinion

No. 329926

01-24-2017

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARRY LEE STATON, Defendant-Appellant.


UNPUBLISHED Calhoun Circuit Court
LC No. 2015-001725-FH Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and STEPHENS and O'BRIEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Larry Lee Staton, was convicted by a jury of operating or maintaining a methamphetamine lab, MCL 333.7401c(2)(f), and possession of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), and sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to concurrent prison terms of 36 months to 40 years for operating-or-maintaining conviction and 18 months to 10 years for the possession conviction. He appeals as of right his October 16, 2015 judgment of sentence. We affirm.

Defendant's convictions arise out of a traffic stop performed by Michigan State Police Trooper Matthew McLalin on westbound I-94 in Calhoun County. According to Trooper McLalin, he observed defendant driving the vehicle without a seatbelt and immediately effectuated a traffic stop. While speaking with defendant during the stop, Trooper McLalin "noticed that [defendant's] arms, his extremities, hands and fingers were shaking" as though he was "very nervous." Trooper McLalin asked for consent to search the vehicle, and defendant consented to the search. During his search of the vehicle, Trooper McLalin discovered butane or Coleman fuel, toilet bowl cleaner, a "Ronson Tech Torch," several glass containers with "suspected Methamphetamine residue," brake fluid, instant cold packs, coffee filters, Morton salt, "Silicone Airline tubing," pliers, multiple two-liter bottles, a bernzomatic and zippo lighter, lye, pills, paper towel with burn marks, a spoon with burn marks, and an ink pen shell casing. According to Trooper McLalin, these items are all components used to manufacture methamphetamine. Kristie Sekedat, a forensic scientist who testified "as an expert in the area of narcotic analysis or drug analysis," appears to have tested only the ink pen shell casing, which she described as a "tube," and she indicated that the object did, in fact, test positive for methamphetamine. After hearing this, as well as other testimony presented by the parties, the jury found defendant guilty, and he was sentenced as described above. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant argues that his convictions must be vacated because the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of each crime. Specifically, defendant argues that his operating-or-maintaining conviction must be vacated because the prosecution failed to prove that he either owned or controlled any chemical or laboratory equipment that was found in the vehicle that he was driving. Relatedly, he also argues that his operating-or-maintaining conviction must be vacated because the prosecution failed to prove that he had knowledge that the chemicals or laboratory equipment that was found in the vehicle could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Defendant also argues that his possession conviction must be vacated because the prosecution failed to prove that he had knowledge that methamphetamine was present in the vehicle that he was driving. We disagree in all respects.

We review a defendant's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim de novo. People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 452; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). In reviewing such a claim, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of each crime at issue were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 399-400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). Circumstantial evidence, as well as the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Additionally, conflicting testimony between prosecution and defense witnesses presents a question of credibility that is for the trier of fact to decide, and we will not resolve credibility questions anew on appeal. People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 380; 465 NW2d 365 (1990). Ultimately, the prosecution need not negate every theory of innocence; rather, it need only prove the elements of a crime in the face of whatever conflicting evidence is offered by defendant. Nowack, 462 Mich at 400.

In this case, defendant was convicted of operating or maintaining a methamphetamine lab, MCL 333.7401c(2)(f), and possession of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i). Defendant's operating-or-maintaining conviction was premised on his ownership or possession of a chemical or laboratory equipment that he knew or had reason to know would be used for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, MCL 333.7401c(1)(b), which involved or was intended to involve the manufacture of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7214(c)(ii). See also MCL 333.7401c(2)(f). Thus, the elements of that crime are the following: the defendant must own or possess a chemical or laboratory equipment, MCL 333.7401c(7)(b), and the defendant must know or have reason to know that the chemical or laboratory equipment is to be used for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, MCL 333.7401c(7)(c). Possession of methamphetamine requires a showing, whether it be by direct or circumstantial evidence, of "dominion or right of control over the drug with knowledge of its presence and character," and possession may be actual or constructive as well as exclusive or joint. People v Meshell, 265 Mich App 616, 621-622; 696 NW2d 754 (2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also MCL 333.7403(1). Applying those rules to the facts of this case, we conclude that the prosecution presented constitutionally sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions.

First, we disagree with defendant's argument that his operating-or-maintaining conviction must be vacated because the prosecution failed to prove that he either owned or controlled the chemicals or laboratory equipment that was found in the vehicle that he was driving. It is undisputed that the objects found in the vehicle that defendant was driving do, in fact, constitute chemical and laboratory equipment. MCL 333.7401c(1)(b). While there was evidence supporting defendant's argument that the vehicle was not registered in his name and was only borrowed, it is equally true that defendant himself repeatedly referred to the vehicle as his, i.e., "my vehicle." Furthermore, some of the components were either within his reach inside of the vehicle, found in a prescription bottled addressed with his name, found in his pillowcase, or found in or near his other belongings. Thus, the jury was certainly permitted to infer from this evidence that defendant either owned or controlled the chemicals or laboratory equipment that was found in the vehicle during the traffic stop. See, e.g., People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 521; 489 NW2d 748 (1992).

Second, we disagree with defendant's argument that his operating-or-maintaining conviction must be vacated because the prosecution failed to prove that he had knowledge that the chemical or laboratory equipment that was found in the vehicle that he was driving could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Perhaps the best evidence of defendant's knowledge that the chemical or laboratory equipment could be used to manufacture methamphetamine in this case is defendant's own statements—as indicated above, as soon as the objects were found in the vehicle, defendant voluntarily acknowledged that he was "going to jail" multiple times because someone had "planted a meth lab in [his] vehicle." Defendant's reaction, coupled with the apparently used nature of some of the methamphetamine components, e.g., the spoon, paper towel, and ink pen shell casing, provided sufficient evidence to allow the jury to infer that defendant knew or had reason to know that the objects found in the vehicle could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Meshell, 265 Mich App at 621-622.

Third, we reject defendant's argument that his possession conviction must be vacated because the prosecution failed to prove that he had knowledge that methamphetamine was present in the vehicle that he was driving. He points to the invisible nature of the methamphetamine residue that was found on the ink pen shell casing as dispositive in this case. While there is caselaw to support his claim that the possession of weightless and invisible methamphetamine residue is insufficient to support a possession conviction in and of itself, see, e.g., People v Hunten, 115 Mich App 167, 170-171; 320 NW2d 68 (1982), his argument fails to acknowledge that a minute amount of drugs, when coupled with suspicious behavior, is nevertheless sufficient, People v Ricky Vaughn, 200 Mich App 32, 37-38; 504 NW2d 2 (1993). The prosecution presented evidence that defendant was nervous to the point of shaking during the traffic stop, that some of the components found in the vehicle were purchased separately from various stores, and that some of the components were concealed inside of a computer tower in the vehicle. This suspicious behavior, coupled with the minute amount of methamphetamine found on the ink pen shell casing, constituted sufficient evidence to support defendant's possession conviction. Id.

Ultimately, defendant's argument on appeal is premised on his attempt to discredit circumstantial evidence as well as to renew credibility determinations that were made by the jury. His argument has no merit in these respects. Circumstantial evidence, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, is undisputedly sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts. Carines, 460 Mich at 757; see also Meshell, 265 Mich App at 622. Similarly, we will not resolve credibility determinations anew on appeal, and defendant essentially asks this Court to vacate his convictions based on the testimony of Erik Franks, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop and who was eventually convicted of various methamphetamine-related crimes arising out of that stop, that the jury obviously found unbelievable. Vaughn, 186 Mich App at 380. In sum, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions in this case.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien


Summaries of

People v. Staton

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 24, 2017
No. 329926 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2017)
Case details for

People v. Staton

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARRY LEE STATON…

Court:STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Jan 24, 2017

Citations

No. 329926 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2017)