People v. James

188 N.W.2d 164, 32 Mich. App. 278, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1884

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals his nonjurytrial conviction of unarmed robbery. MCLA § 750-.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798). His appeal as serts there was not sufficient evidence as a matter of law to support his conviction.

Appellate courts do not constitute reviewing fact finders and do not hear cases anew upon the evidence presented in a criminal case. People v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich App 449; People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich App 103. Further, the test is not whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, hut whether the evidence warrants a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. People v. Williams (1962), 368 Mich 494, 501; People v. Schram (1965), 1 Mich App 279; People v. Jones (1965), 1 Mich App 633; People v. Washington (1966), 4 Mich App 453; People v. Galarno (1966), 3 Mich App 491.

The victim in this case was Amado Settles. Defendant admitted he knew that Amado Settles wanted to procure the services of a girl and further that he knew Amado Settles was carrying a substantial amount of money. The evidence shows Amado Settles walked around “behind” the Traffic Jam Bar where he was grabbed, beaten and robbed of his money by a small group of men. The evidence further shows that defendant was one of the men who beat Amado Settles. The only reasonable inference which the trial court, sitting without a jury, could draw from these facts was that defendant willingly and knowingly participated with others in a plan or scheme to rob Amado Settles while unarmed.

Where there is evidence from which the court could reasonably find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a reviewing court will not interfere with the trier of the facts’ determination. People v. Ford (1969), 19 Mich App 519, 521, dealing with armed robbery in a jury trial.

In the instant case there was ample evidence to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the trial court. Defendant was given a fair and impartial trial and there was no miscarriage of justice. MCLA § 769.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1096).

Judgment affirmed.