-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Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 26, 2016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: G ADOLA , P.J., and S ERVITTO and S HAPIRO , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of tw o counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529. The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth h abitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 25 to 40 years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

This case arises from the armed robbery of Derron White and Ap ril Burmeister. The three men involved in the robbery were identified as defendant, defendant’s brother Stephon Patrick, and Benjamin Ghee. According to the complainants’ tes timony, 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 o n the ground, defendant said, “that’s not all,” prompting his brother to search his pockets again. D efendant 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 apprehende d, he had the items stolen from White, including a prescription and money.

On appeal, defendant argues that there is insufficient evidenc e 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 evi dence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor to determine whether a rationa l 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 o f 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 prosecu tion that imposes vicarious li ability. Id

. at 6.

To establish that a defendant aided and abetted a crime, the p rosecutor must show that: “(1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some o ther person; (2) the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commissi on of the crime; and (3) the defendant intended the commissi on 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 aide r 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). Circumstanti al evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence is sufficient proof for t he elements of a crime. See id . at 758. Factors that may be consider ed include a close associatio n between the defendant and the principal, the defendant’s par ticipation in the planning or exe cution 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 commi tted. See Plunkett , 485 Mich at 61. In order to obtain a convic tion for armed robbery, a prose cutor must show that: “(1) the defendant, in the course of committing a larceny of any money o r 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 fash ioned in a manner to lead any person present to reasonably believe that the article was a dan gerous weapon, or represented orally or otherwise that he or she was in possession of a dange rous weapon.” People v Chambers , 277 Mich App 1, 7; 742 NW2d 610 (2007). MCL 750.530(2) defin es “in the course of committing a larceny” to include “acts that occur in an atte mpt to commit the larceny, or during commission of the larceny, or in flight or attempted fli ght 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 o ccurred. Specifically, defenda nt’s brother and Ghee held Burmeister and White against their will while taking their mone y 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 te stified that they feared for their lives. Finally, defendant’s brother had a handgun, which he us ed as a dangerous weapon. Given this evidence, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence at trial to establish the elements of armed robbery, which also establishe s the first element of aidi ng and abetting.

The second element of aiding and abetting is also met given th e evidence that defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted in the commi ssion of the armed robberies. See Plunkett , 485 Mich at 61. Defendant remi nds us that mere presence is n ot 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 en couraged his brother and Ghee during the commission of the crime. He also aided in the execu tion of the armed robbery when he served as a lookout, 2 picked the stolen items up, and fled after the crime. When ta ken 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, Whit e testified that after he dropped the items on the ground, defenda nt said, “that’s not all,” prom pting defendant’s brother to search his pockets again. 3

Finally, the third element of aiding and abetting was met beca use there was sufficient evidence to show defendant intended the armed robbery or had kn owledge 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 cont inued presence during the inci dent demonstrates his knowledge that his brother and Ghee intended to carry out an armed robber y of White and Burmeister. Moreover, defendant was in close proximity while the assault oc curred, did nothing to stop his brother or Ghee, and did not attempt to contact the police. Th us, an inference may be drawn that defendant intended that the arm ed 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. O n this record, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence fo r a rational trier of fact to f ind that defendant a ided 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 defe ndant 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, do n’t do this,” before he picked up the items, “conflicts in the evidence must be resolved by the t rier of fact[.]” See People v Stone

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