People of Michigan v. Patrick Wayne Koger

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 12:10 PM v No. 368488 Oakland Circuit Court PATRICK WAYNE KOGER, LC No. 2020-275314-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and O’BRIEN and ACKERMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial convictions for third-degree fleeing and eluding a police officer, MCL 257.602a(3)(a); carrying a firearm during commission of a felony (felony- firearm), third offense, MCL 750.227b; felon in possession of a firearm (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f; assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1); operating under the influence (OUI), MCL 257.625; operating with license suspended or revoked, MCL 257.904(1); and failure to stop after a collision, MCL 257.620. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This case arises out of a hit-and-run incident on April 22, 2020, in Southfield, Michigan. According to testimony at defendant’s trial, at about 10:50 p.m. on that day, 911-dispatch- supervisor Lauren Richards received a call from Richard Billingslea, who stated that a Crown Victoria had hit his car at the intersection of 9 Mile Road and Telegraph Road, then fled. Billingslea gave the plate of the vehicle and a description of the driver. Billingslea also said that the other driver had pointed a gun at him. Before trial, defendant stipulated to the admission of all of the prosecution’s exhibits, including Billingslea’s 911 call, and that call was played for the jury without objection. Officer Joseph Martinez of the Southfield Police Department responded to Billingslea’s call. At defendant’s trial, Officer Martinez testified that Billingslea told him the same information that Billingslea relayed in his 911 call. After speaking with Billingslea, Officer Martinez drove to a nearby park to write his report. While preparing the report, Officer Martinez saw a Crown Victoria matching the description given by Billingslea drive by. Officer Martinez followed the car -1- and activated the lights of his patrol car, but the Crown Victoria did not pull over. Instead, the Crown Victoria led Officer Martinez on a highspeed chase into a residential neighborhood, where the Crown Victoria eventually went into a ditch. Defendant, the driver of the Crown Victoria, then fled on foot and was tackled by another officer. A different officer searched the Crown Victoria and found a handgun under the driver’s seat. The gun’s serial number was associated with Tina Boston-Smith. Boston-Smith was called as a defense witness at trial. She testified that defendant had driven his Crown Victoria to her house on the afternoon of April 22, 2020. Then later that day, while defendant stayed at Boston-Smith’s house, Boston-Smith took defendant’s Crown Victoria to the store. Boston-Smith—who had a concealed pistol license—took her firearm with her and tucked it underneath the driver’s seat of defendant’s car. After she returned from the store, she left her gun in defendant’s car but did not realize her mistake until the next day. Defendant was convicted as previously stated. This appeal followed. II. HEARSAY AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously allowed Officer Martinez to testify about statements made by Billingslea because the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and violated defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. Defendant alternatively argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Officer Martinez’s allegedly-inadmissible testimony. Neither argument warrants appellate relief. A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW “To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v Thorpe, 504 Mich 230, 252; 934 NW2d 693 (2019). Defendant did not object to Officer Martinez’s disputed testimony during trial, so defendant’s challenge to the substantive admissibility of the officer’s testimony is unpreserved. An unpreserved issue is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights. People v Shafier, 483 Mich 205, 211; 768 NW2d 305 (2009); Thorpe, 5