Sign In

160661 - People v Cleophas Andrew Brown

The People of the State of Michigan,


Louis Meizlish





(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)



(Oakland – Langford-Morris, D.)


Cleophas Andrew Brown,


Timothy Doman





After he was pulled over for running a red light and was determined to be intoxicated, the defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) (in an automobile), second-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI), and possession of a firearm while under the influence.  His concealed pistol license (CPL) had previously been revoked because of an OWI, but he asserted that he did not receive notice of the revocation.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the CCW charge, holding that the prosecution failed to produce evidence that “conclusively demonstrates” that the defendant received notice that his CPL was revoked, as required by MCL 28.428.  The court held that the evidence of “verbal” notice – a LEIN entry – was insufficient.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in a published opinion, holding that the requirement that CPL holders receive notice if their CPL is suspended or revoked, MCL 28.428, only shields persons from criminal liability under that statute, not the CCW statute.  The Court of Appeals also determined that, regardless, the trial court erred in holding that “verbal” notice is insufficient under MCL 28.428 and that the uncontested evidence showed that the defendant also at least received written notice that his CPL was suspended.   The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address:  (1) whether in a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon under MCL 750.227(2), the prosecutor must establish that the defendant had notice under MCL 28.428 that his concealed pistol license had been suspended or revoked; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that if notice is required, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant was served with adequate notice that he could not legally possess a concealed pistol.​