e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 59929
Opinion Date : 05/14/2015
e-Journal Date : 05/27/2015
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Watkins
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Beckering, Markey, and Shapiro
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Meissner; Assault by strangulation; MCL 750.84(1)(b); “Strangulation or suffocation”; MCL 750.84(2); Domestic assault; MCL 750.81(2); “Assault”; People v. Cameron; Credibility of witnesses; People v. Lemmon; Court costs; MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii) & (1)(b)(iii); People v. Cunningham; People v. Konopka

Summary

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s convictions of assault by strangulation and domestic assault, and that the trial court did not err by imposing court costs. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 36 to 240 months’ imprisonment for assault by strangulation and 30 to 240 months’ imprisonment for domestic assault. The trial court also imposed $1,000 in court costs. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, finding it was sufficient to show that he “intentionally engaged in unconsented and harmful or offensive touching of” the victim. It noted that the victim testified that he “pushed, choked, and kicked” her, which “caused her to have trouble breathing and to feel like she would vomit.” Further, this behavior resulted in injuries to the victim’s throat, a police officer noticed injuries to her neck, and her credibility was corroborated. It also rejected his argument that the trial court erred in imposing $1,000 in court costs, noting the case was pending on appeal when the Legislature adopted the amended version of MCL 769.1k, which it found applies retroactively. The amended version “authorizes a trial court to impose ‘any cost reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the trial court without separately calculating those costs involved in the particular case’ including costs necessary for court personnel, goods and services necessary to the operation of the court, and necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.” Thus, defendant could not show that the trial court erred. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion