-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

May 26, 2016 

v No. 326351 

Oakland Circuit Court 

MICHAEL LAMAR PATRICK, LC No. 2014-249081-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: GADOLA, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of two counts of armed robbery, 

MCL 750.529. The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, 

to 25 to 40 years’ imprisonment. We affirm. 

 This case arises from the armed robbery of Derron White and April Burmeister. The 

three men involved in the robbery were identified as defendant, defendant’s brother Stephon 

Patrick, and Benjamin Ghee. According to the complainants’ testimony, defendant’s brother 

physically shoved Burmeister while pulling a handgun out of his pocket. Ghee restrained 

Burmeister while defendant’s brother held White at gunpoint and ordered him to drop the items 

in his hand. White testified that after he dropped the items on the ground, defendant said, “that’s 

not all,” prompting his brother to search his pockets again. Defendant picked up the items and 

put them in his pockets while his brother took White’s driver’s license and money. All three 

men then fled the scene on foot. When defendant was apprehended, he had the items stolen from 

White, including a prescription and money. 

 On appeal, defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence to convict him of armed 

robbery on an aiding and abetting theory.1

 We disagree. 

 

1

 A defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. People v 

Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 452; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). We review the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prosecutor to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the 

essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Ericksen, 288 

Mich App 192, 196; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). 
-2- 

 One who procures, counsels, aids, or abets in the commission of an offense may be 

convicted and punished as if he directly committed the offense. MCL 767.39; People v 

Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 5-6; 715 NW2d 44 (2006). Aiding and abetting is not a separate offense; 

rather, it is a theory of prosecution that imposes vicarious liability. Id. at 6. 

 To establish that a defendant aided and abetted a crime, the prosecutor must show that: 

“(1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person; (2) the defendant 

performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime; and (3) the 

defendant intended the commission of the crime or had knowledge that the principal intended its 

commission at the time that [he] gave aid and encouragement.” People v Plunkett, 485 Mich 50, 

61; 780 NW2d 280 (2010) (internal quotation omitted). “An aider and abettor’s state of mind 

may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 

597 NW2d 130 (1999) (internal quotation omitted). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable 

inferences arising from that evidence is sufficient proof for the elements of a crime. See id. at 

758. Factors that may be considered include a close association between the defendant and the 

principal, the defendant’s participation in the planning or execution of the crime, and evidence of 

flight after the crime. Id. 

 Here, the first element of aiding and abetting is met because sufficient evidence was 

presented at trial to establish that an armed robbery was committed. See Plunkett, 485 Mich at 

61. In order to obtain a conviction for armed robbery, a prosecutor must show that: “(1) the 

defendant, in the course of committing a larceny of any money or other property that may be the 

subject of a larceny, used force or violence against any person who was present or assaulted or 

put the person in fear, and (2) the defendant, in the course of committing the larceny, either 

possessed a dangerous weapon, possessed an article used or fashioned in a manner to lead any 

person present to reasonably believe that the article was a dangerous weapon, or represented 

orally or otherwise that he or she was in possession of a dangerous weapon.” People v 

Chambers, 277 Mich App 1, 7; 742 NW2d 610 (2007). MCL 750.530(2) defines “in the course 

of committing a larceny” to include “acts that occur in an attempt to commit the larceny, or 

during commission of the larceny, or in flight or attempted flight after the commission of the 

larceny, or in an attempt to retain possession of the property.” In this case there was ample 

evidence that an armed robbery occurred. Specifically, defendant’s brother and Ghee held 

Burmeister and White against their will while taking their money and property. Defendant’s 

brother and Ghee used force and violence against Burmeister and White: defendant’s brother 

shoved Burmeister and pressed a handgun against White’s temple, and Ghee verbally threatened 

Burmeister and physically restrained her. Both complainants testified that they feared for their 

lives. Finally, defendant’s brother had a handgun, which he used as a dangerous weapon. Given 

this evidence, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence at trial to establish the elements of 

armed robbery, which also establishes the first element of aiding and abetting. 

 The second element of aiding and abetting is also met given the evidence that defendant 

performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted in the commission of the armed robberies. 

See Plunkett, 485 Mich at 61. Defendant reminds us that mere presence is not enough to find 

someone aided and abetted a crime, even with knowledge that an offense is about to be 

committed or is being committed. People v Norris, 236 Mich App 411, 419-420; 600 NW2d 658 

(1999). However, the evidence demonstrated far more than mere presence. Although defendant 

was not the individual in possession of a dangerous weapon, and did not personally use force or 
-3- 

violence against either Burmeister or White, he assisted and encouraged his brother and Ghee 

during the commission of the crime. He also aided in the execution of the armed robbery when 

he served as a lookout,2 picked the stolen items up, and fled after the crime. When taken 

together, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant performed acts, 

encouraged, and assisted in the armed robbery. Moreover, there is evidence that defendant 

helped and encouraged his brother and Ghee. Specifically, White testified that after he dropped 

the items on the ground, defendant said, “that’s not all,” prompting defendant’s brother to search 

his pockets again.3

 Finally, the third element of aiding and abetting was met because there was sufficient 

evidence to show defendant intended the armed robbery or had knowledge of it as the crime 

occurred. See Plunkett, 485 Mich at 61. Defendant’s statement prompting his brother to search 

White’s pocket again and his continued presence during the incident demonstrates his knowledge 

that his brother and Ghee intended to carry out an armed robbery of White and Burmeister. 

Moreover, defendant was in close proximity while the assault occurred, did nothing to stop his 

brother or Ghee, and did not attempt to contact the police. Thus, an inference may be drawn that 

defendant intended that the armed robbery occur. Additionally, the fact that defendant picked up 

the prescription and money off the ground establishes intent to permanently deprive the victims 

of their property and intent to assist in the armed robbery. On this record, the prosecution 

presented sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that defendant aided and abetted in 

the armed robberies of White and Burmeister. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Michael F. Gadola 

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

 

2

 Burmeister testified that defendant told his brother and Ghee that there were vehicles 

approaching and people were coming out of their houses. 

3

 Although Burmeister testified that defendant said, “no, no, don’t do this,” before he picked up 

the items, “conflicts in the evidence must be resolved by the trier of fact[.]” See People v Stone, 

463 Mich 558, 567; 621 NW2d 702 (2001).