-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 30, 2014 

v No. 317067 

Wayne Circuit Court 

CALVIN LAMONT GLOSTER, LC No. 12-011677-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and SAAD and HOEKSTRA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 A jury convicted defendant of armed robbery under MCL 750.529, and possession of a 

firearm during the commission of a felony (“felony-firearm”) under MCL 750.227b. On appeal, 

he claims that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to sustain his felony-firearm 

conviction. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. People v Lockett,

295 Mich App 165, 180; 814 NW2d 295 (2012). The evidence must be viewed in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found that the 

essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Reese, 491 

Mich 127, 139; 815 NW2d 85 (2012). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 The elements of felony-firearm are: (1) the defendant possessed a firearm, (2) during the 

commission of, or the attempt to commit, a felony. MCL 750.227b; and People v Avant, 235 

Mich App 499, 505; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). MCL 750.222(d) defines a “firearm” as “a weapon 

from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air.” A 

firearm does not include “a smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively 

for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BBs not exceeding .177 caliber.” MCL 750.222(d). 

The crime of felony-firearm does “not require proof that the firearm was ‘operable’ or 

‘reasonably or readily operable.’ Rather, the statute requires only that the weapon be of a type 

that is designed or intended to propel a dangerous projectile.” People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 

642; 720 NW2d 196 (2006). 
-2- 

 Here, defendant says that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to sustain his 

conviction of felony-firearm, because it did not establish the type of firearm he used in the 

offense or whether the firearm was real. Actually, the prosecution presented substantial 

evidence, in the form of the victim’s testimony and defendant’s own admission at a police 

interrogation, that defendant possessed a firearm when he committed the robbery. 

 Specifically, the victim testified at trial that she was robbed by three men, each of whom 

pointed a gun at her. She further testified that she believed the gun being held by the man who 

took her purse1

 made a noise. When asked to describe that noise, the victim testified that she 

“believed it to be that he cocked the gun.” There was no evidence to suggest that the gun was 

not real. Further, in his interrogation statements, defendant admitted that he possessed a .38 

caliber gun during another robbery that he committed approximately 12 hours later. The 

prosecution accordingly presented more than sufficient evidence to allow a rational trier of fact 

to find defendant guilty of felony-firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Christopher M. Murray 

/s/ Henry William Saad 

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra 

 

1

 Defendant admitted in his interrogation that he took the victim’s purse.