e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84676
Opinion Date : 11/17/2025
e-Journal Date : 11/24/2025
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Evans
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Letica, M.J. Kelly, and Mariani
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); People v VanderVliet; Sufficiency of evidence (constructive possession); MCL 333.7401; People v Baham; Ineffective assistance (failure to investigate & call witnesses); Sentencing proportionality; MCL 769.34; People v Steanhouse

Summary

The court held that defendant’s convictions and within guidelines sentences for possession of meth with intent to deliver and related firearm offenses were supported by properly admitted evidence. There was sufficient proof of constructive possession, effective assistance of counsel, and a proportionate sentence. Thus, it affirmed. Defendant, who had an outstanding felony warrant, fled on foot when officers tried to arrest him at a gas station. Along his flight path a 31 gram bag of meth was later found, and a search of his vehicle revealed a handgun, ammunition, scales with meth residue, plastic baggies, two phones, and $5,480 in mostly $100 bills. The trial court convicted him of meth possession with intent to deliver and multiple firearm offenses and sentenced him as a fourth habitual offender to 20 to 50 years for the drug count with concurrent and consecutive firearm terms. On appeal, the court held that testimony referencing his warrant and prior record was admissible for identity, to show a lawful arrest for the resisting charge, and to give the “complete story,” and it noted that “evidence of defendant’s prior criminal history was clearly relevant to and offered for proper nonpropensity purposes.” The court also found that the circumstantial evidence created a sufficient nexus for constructive possession because “a rational jury could have readily found beyond a reasonable doubt” that the meth was his. It further concluded that defendant “offered nothing that might overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s actions and decisions” about not calling certain witnesses were reasonable strategy. Finally, given defendant’s lengthy, assaultive record and repeated offending while on supervision, he failed to overcome the presumption that his within guidelines minimum term was reasonable and proportionate.

Full PDF Opinion