People of Michigan v. Donte Jamelle Smith

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:50 PM v No. 370182 Van Buren Circuit Court DONTE JAMELLE SMITH, LC No. 2023-024625-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: YATES, P.J., and YOUNG and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. As a result of a strange car chase, defendant, Donte Jamelle Smith, was convicted by a jury of carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (CCW-auto), MCL 750.227, and fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, MCL 257.602a(2), but he was acquitted of three counts of second-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(3). On appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of MCL 750.227, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 5, 2023, Michigan State Police Trooper Alex Sussdorf signaled defendant to stop his car because of a cracked windshield and an expired Arkansas license plate. Trooper Sussdorf turned on the overhead lights on his police cruiser, but defendant did not apply the brakes. Trooper Sussdorf then activated his siren and airhorn, and issued commands over the cruiser’s loudspeaker. Defendant repeatedly steered his car to the shoulder and repeatedly activated, and then deactivated, the vehicle’s right-turn signal, but steered back onto the freeway each time. Eventually, defendant drove up the off-ramp and stopped at a gas station, which was approximately two miles from where Trooper Sussdorf initiated the traffic stop. Before stopping, defendant did not accelerate; he just maintained a speed that was below the posted speed limit. As defendant drove onto the off-ramp, Trooper Sussdorf saw a suspected gun thrown from the car’s window. After defendant stopped, Trooper Sussdorf identified defendant as the driver of the car, and he also saw that defendant’s three children were passengers. Defendant told Trooper Sussdorf that a gun was in the vehicle, and a search revealed a loaded shotgun in the trunk of the car. Defendant denied throwing anything out of the car, but an unloaded 9mm Smith & Wesson -1- M&P handgun was recovered from the area where Trooper Sussdorf saw a suspected firearm being thrown from defendant’s vehicle. Defendant was asked whether he had a concealed pistol license. In response, defendant “sounded very confused,” he could not provide a concealed pistol license to Trooper Sussdorf, neither the car nor defendant’s wallet contained a concealed pistol license, and defendant had not been issued such a license by the State of Michigan. Defendant was tried on five charges before a jury on December 14, 2023. The jury returned not-guilty verdicts on the three charges of second-degree child abuse, but the jury found defendant guilty of CCW-auto and fourth-degree fleeing and eluding. Defendant now appeals of right. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS On appeal, defendant contests both of his convictions, but not his sentences. Specifically, he claims his conviction for CCW-auto must be overturned because the statute under which he was convicted, i.e., MCL 750.227, is unconstitutional. In addition, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both convictions. We shall address these two arguments in turn. A. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO MCL 750.227 Defendant contends that MCL 750.227, and its prohibition of carrying a pistol in a vehicle without a concealed pistol license, must be deemed unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen, 597 US 1, 17; 142 S Ct 2111; 213 L Ed 2d 387 (2022). But that argument was never advanced in the trial court, so it is unpreserved for appellate purposes. Unpreserved constitutional claims are reviewed only for plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Ordinarily, all “[m]atters of constitutional and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo,” People v Skinner, 502 Mich 89, 99; 917 NW2d 292 (2018), but under the plain-error rule, unpreserved constitutional claims require a showing that: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the plain error affected the