-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 14, 2015

v No. 320625 Eaton Circuit Court PETER WINTHROP FOX, LC No. 08-020081-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O WENS , P.J., and J ANSEN and M URRAY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals as of right 1 the trial court’s imposition of 30 days in jail after a determination that he violate d the terms of his probation. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of larceny by conversion in Decembe r 2010, and he was sentenced to 10 days in jail and 60 months on probation. People v Fox , unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 16, 2012 (Docket No. 305200). On appeal, this Court upheld defendant’s conviction. Id. After the judgment of sentence was entered and prior to filing his claim of appeal in the case at hand, the trial co urt held a restitution hearing and concluded defendant owed the victim $20,916. As a credit towar ds that sum, defendant agreed to sign the title to his 1997 Cadillac over to the victim. Aft er several hearings, the trial court found defendant in contempt for failure to comply. The trial c ourt extended defendant’s probation and sentenced him t o 30 days in jail. Defendant now challenges the contempt finding.

Probation revocation is a two-step process: the trial court ma kes a factual determination concerning whether a defendant violated probation, then determi nes whether the violation warrants revoking probati on. MCR 6.455(E) and (G); People v Pillar , 233 Mich App 267, 269; 590 NW2d 622 (1998). We generally review de novo claims concer ning the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal proceeding. People v Kanaan , 278 Mich App 594, 618; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). A trial court’s determin ation that a defendant violate d probation must be based on facts

1 Because the trial court did not revoke defendant’s probation, defendant was not entitled to an appeal as of right. MCR 7.202(6)(b)( v ). However, in the interest of judicial economy, we treat the claim of appeal as an applic ation for leave to appeal, whic h we grant. MCR 7.216(A)(7).-2- in the record. People v Breeding , 284 Mich App 471, 487; 772 NW2d 810 (2009). We review the evidence in a light most fa vorable to the prosecution to de termine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecution proved that the defendant violated his or her probation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. “Where resolution of a factual issue turns on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of evidence, deference is given to t he trial court’s resolution of these issues.” Id . (citation omitted).

On appeal, defendant asserts that because the title was mailed to his probati on agent Todd Brunner on November 26, 2013, and defendant paid the $469.59 fo r car repairs when ordered to do so by the trial court, there was no probation violation. Ho wever, the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant had failed to mail the tit le when required and only did so after a contempt hearing was schedule d. That title was ultimately ma iled and received by Brunner is irrelevant; the condition of pr obation was “You must sign the t itle of the 1997 Cadillac over to” the victim’s estate. MCL 257.233(8) provides as follows:

The owner shall indorse on the ce rtificate of title as require d by the secretary of state an assignment of the title with warranty of title in the form printed on the certificate with a statement of all security int erests in the vehicle or in accessories on the vehicle and deliver or cause the certific ate to be mailed or delivered to the purchaser or tr ansferee at the time of the del ivery to the purchaser or transferee of the vehicle. T he certificate shall show the p ayment or satisfaction of any security interest as shown on the original title.

The evidence from the hearing also supports the trial court’s findings that defendant failed to enter a selling date or selling price, which prevente d legal assignment of the title to occur. Accordingly, more than four months after the court orde red defendant to tr ansfer title to the victim’s estate, defendant s till had not complied with the probationary term. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the tr ial court did not err in concluding that defendant violat ed his probation.

Affirmed.

/s/ Donald S. Owens /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Christopher M. Murray