-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

August 15, 2017

v No. 332586

Kalamazoo Circuit Court

RENISHA RENEE LONDON, LC No. 2015-001324-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and MURPHY and K. F. KELLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right her conviction following a jury trial of assault with a 

dangerous weapon (felonious assault), MCL 750.82, and possession of a firearm during the 

commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. She was sentenced to time served 

with respect to the felonious assault conviction and to two years’ imprisonment for the felonyfirearm conviction. We affirm.

Defendant assaulted the female victim with a handgun. The victim testified that in 

September 2015, she and defendant had an argument that devolved into a physical confrontation. 

According to the victim, defendant kept demanding that she give up her car keys. The victim 

testified that at one point during the ongoing fight, she observed defendant holding a gun. The 

victim claimed that the fight culminated in defendant directly threatening to shoot her with the 

gun. 

At the close of trial, the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of felonious assault 

and the lesser misdemeanor offense of assault and battery. The court then instructed the jury on 

the felony-firearm charge, specifying that felonious assault was the predicate felony. Consistent 

with M Crim JI 11.34(3) and People v Lewis, 415 Mich 443, 454-455; 330 NW2d 16 (1982), the 

trial court instructed the jury that it was not necessary that defendant be convicted of felonious 

assault in order to convict her of felony-firearm. 

The trial court subsequently instructed the jury on how to use the verdict form. Pertinent 

to this appeal, the court gave the following direction:

Now . . . there is one special aspect of this, if you check the guilty of a less 

serious offense of assault and battery, then you can’t check felony firearm. You 

either have to check the not guilty box and then you can find—you can still find 
-2-

guilty of felony firearm or guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon you can 

check guilty of felony firearm, but if you find the less serious offense, you can’t 

find guilty on the felony firearm.

Following the verdict, defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred 

by instructing the jury that it could not convict defendant of felony-firearm if it convicted her of 

misdemeanor assault and battery. The court denied the motion, reasoning as follows:

The [c]ourt indicated that if [the jury] checked the guilty of assault and 

battery [box], then . . . essentially that it took the felony firearm off the table. 

That’s incorrect, as cited by counsel. It would be correct in a bench trial, as 

indicated by the case law provided by appellate counsel but it would be incorrect 

with a jury who can make inconsistent findings . . . .

[I] think it does matter though that she got an instruction that was more 

favorable than that to which she was entitled. Because of that, I cannot say that 

the error . . . rise[s] to the level of a miscarriage of justice. . . .

On appeal, defendant argues that she should be granted a new trial because of the 

instructional error. The prosecution goes straight to harmless-error analysis pursuant to MCL 

769.26 and People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 493-494; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).

Before the jury was instructed in regard to the use of the verdict form, the trial court 

asked both attorneys if they had any “additions, deletions, or corrections to the jury instructions” 

already given, to which both responded that they did not. The court repeated this inquiry 

following its instructions on how to use the verdict form, and again both attorneys responded in 

the negative. Thus, defendant waived review of the issue on appeal. People v Matuszak, 263 

Mich App 42, 57; 687 NW2d 342 (2004). She does not bootstrap a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel.1

Moreover, even if the claim of error was properly preserved, reversal would not be 

warranted under the circumstances of the case. MCL 769.26 provides that “[n]o judgment or 

verdict shall be set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted . . . in any criminal case, on the 

ground of misdirection of the jury, . . . unless . . . it shall affirmatively appear that the error 

complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Here, there was no miscarriage of 

justice. Simply put, the instructional error favored or benefited defendant, taking felony-firearm 

off the table had the jury convicted her of assault and battery. Indeed, a careful examination of 

defendant’s appellate brief does not reveal any specific claim of prejudice, although lack of 

prejudice formed the basis of the trial court’s ruling on the motion for new trial. There is no 

logical argument to be made that the instructional error somehow could have resulted in the jury 

 1 Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, she did not preserve the issue by arguing it in the 

motion for new trial. And a waiver at trial is not eradicated by a post-trial claim of error in the 

lower court. 
-3-

improperly finding defendant guilty of felonious assault or felony-firearm, for which crimes, we 

note, there was more than sufficient supporting evidence.

Affirmed. 

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra 

/s/ William B. Murphy 

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly