-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

October 13, 2016 

v No. 327809 

Wayne Circuit Court 

HAZLEY LEE COY, LC No. 14-011038-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and GLEICHER and O’BRIEN, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, 

MCL 750.316(1)(a), and unlawful driving away an automobile, MCL 750.413. Defendant was 

sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to life imprisonment for the murder 

conviction and 76 months to 20 years’ imprisonment for the unlawful driving away conviction. 

Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. 

 Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of firstdegree murder. We disagree. 

 Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo to “determine 

whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 721; 825 NW2d 623 

(2012) (citation omitted). “This Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution.” Id. “This Court resolves all conflicts regarding the evidence in favor of the 

prosecution,” People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 180; 814 NW2d 295 (2012), and 

“[q]uestions of credibility are left to the trier of fact and will not be resolved anew by this 

Court,” People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 506; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). 

In order to convict a defendant of first-degree premeditated murder, the prosecution must 

prove that there was an “(1) the intentional killing of a human (2) with premeditation and 

deliberation.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 472; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). The intent 

required for first-degree premeditated murder is the intent to kill with premeditation and 

deliberation. People v Taylor, 275 Mich App 177, 179; 737 NW2d 790 (2007); MCL 

750.316(1)(1). “Premeditation and deliberation require sufficient time to allow the defendant to 

take a second look.” People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 537; 531 NW2d 780 (1995) 
-2- 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). “Premeditation may be established through evidence of 

the following factors: (1) the prior relationship of the parties; (2) the defendant’s actions before 

the killing; (3) the circumstances of the killing itself; and (4) the defendant’s conduct after the 

homicide.” Id. “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state 

of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). 

 The crime at issue occurred at a home in Detroit. Defendant testified that he and the 

victim were involved in a dispute in the bedroom of the home. The victim hit defendant with a 

wooden club. Defendant then went to the kitchen of the house and obtained a metal pipe. 

Defendant returned to the bedroom and hit the victim with the pipe. At trial, defendant testified 

that the victim was sitting up on the bed, but in a police interrogation, he stated that when he 

reentered the bedroom, the victim was lying on the bed, facing the opposite direction. At trial, 

defendant acknowledged that he could have left the house after being hit by the wooden club. 

This evidence was sufficient to show premeditation and deliberation, as defendant had sufficient 

time to take a second look before killing the victim with the pipe. Anderson, 209 Mich App at 

537. Indeed, “[a] sufficient time lapse to provide an opportunity for a ‘second look’ may be 

merely seconds[.]” People v Meier, 47 Mich App 179, 191-192; 209 NW2d 311 (1973). 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien