Sufficiency of the evidence for a receiving & concealing stolen property conviction; Restitution; Constitutionality of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii); People v Johnson; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's receiving and concealing stolen property conviction. It also affirmed his sentence (including the requirement that he pay costs), but vacated the restitution-award portion of the JOS, and remanded solely for the trial court to reduce the restitution award from $6,000 to $2,000. He argued “the prosecution failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove that defendant knew the Greenlee 555 was stolen at the time he received” the equipment. But the court concluded a fact-finder could find the “prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had guilty knowledge of the stolen status of the equipment at the time he received and possessed the Greenlee 555.” The court concluded “that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of receiving and concealing stolen property.” Defendant argued, and the prosecution concurred, “that the $6,000 restitution award must be vacated and reduced to $2,000 because the amount of restitution is unsupported by the record and exceeds the amount that can be considered part of defendant’s course of conduct.” The court agreed. The prosecution conceded this point and agreed the record only supported a restitution award of $2,000. The trial court’s restitution award was clearly erroneous and must be vacated to accurately reflect the record. The court remanded for the trial court to reduce the restitution award from $6,000 to $2,000. Defendant lastly argued MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) is unconstitutional. Applying Johnson, defendant’s challenges to the facial constitutionality of MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) failed, and the court affirmed the costs ordered by the trial court in defendant’s JOS.