Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
February 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
135025 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
v SC: 135025
COA: 256475
Genesee CC: 03-012650-FH
ALPHONZO LEON WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2007
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CORRIGAN, J., dissents and states as follows:
I dissent from the order denying leave to appeal. I would grant leave to appeal to
consider whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s
conviction of keeping or maintaining a drug vehicle, MCL 333.7405(1)(d), under People
v Thompson, 477 Mich 146 (2007).
In Thompson, supra at 148, 155, this Court held that MCL 333.7405(1)(d)
precludes a conviction of keeping or maintaining a drug vehicle for an isolated incident
without other evidence of continuity. “The phrase ‘keep or maintain’ implies usage with
some degree of continuity that can be deduced by actual observation of repeated acts or
circumstantial evidence, such as perhaps a secret compartment or the like, that conduces
to the same conclusion.” Thompson, supra at 155.
Here, defendant was arrested after driving a vehicle in which there was a brick of
125 grams of uncut cocaine worth $25,000. An expert in drug distribution testified at
defendant’s trial that 125 grams of uncut cocaine is enough to divide into 1,200
individual units. Defendant also had a digital scale in the vehicle but no paraphernalia for
personal drug use. He had his cell phone plugged into the car for battery recharging and
received three phone calls asking for “Al” after his arrest, while he was being transported
2
to the police station. This circumstantial evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable
to the prosecution, appears to show an ongoing drug sales enterprise being conducted in
defendant’s car. Thus, under Thompson, there appears to be sufficient evidence of
continuity to establish that defendant kept or maintained a vehicle for the purpose of
making drug sales and deliveries in violation of MCL 333.7405(1)(d).
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
February 1, 2008 _________________________________________
s0129 Clerk