Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to call witnesses & present evidence; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Rockey; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Grant; People v. Julian; People v. Dunigan; A substantial defense; People v. Kelly; Principle that exculpatory post-trial statements made by a codefendant who declined to testify are deemed unreliable & untrustworthy; People v. Terrell; Decisions about cross-examining & impeaching a witness; In re Ayres; Failure to impeach with prior convictions; People v. Nickson; Failure to raise a futile objection; People v. Fike; Cumulative error; People v. Anderson; People v. LeBlanc; People v. Kvam; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 7; People v. Mattoon; MCL 777.37(1)(a); People v. Hardy; Assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM); People v. Hoffman; People v. Davis; Assault defined; People v. Starks; Display of a gun; People v. Pace; Whether defendant was entitled to resentencing based on errors in the OV scoring; People v. Francisco; Judicial fact-finding; People v. Lockridge; Felon in possession (FIP); Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW)

The court concluded that to the extent defense counsel erred by failing to realize that an officer (C) was the witness he wanted to examine and to ensure his presence at trial, the defendant did not establish prejudice. It rejected defendant’s other ineffective assistance of counsel claims and his cumulative error claim. It held that the trial court did not err in scoring 50 points for OV 7, and that defendant would not be entitled to resentencing even if he was correct that OVs 4, 9, and 10 were improperly scored. The court affirmed his AWIM, FIP, CCW, and felony-firearm convictions, but remanded for further proceedings as to his sentencing pursuant to Lockridge. He argued that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses and for not impeaching a prosecution witness. As to his claim related to the alleged failure to investigate and call potential witness-L, the court noted that L was a codefendant represented by independent counsel. Nothing indicated that her counsel would have consented to an interview by defendant’s attorney at any time before the trial court directed a verdict in her favor. While defendant produced an affidavit from L, it was not part of the trial court record and could not be considered on appeal. The court added that even if it considered the affidavit, it did not show that defense counsel’s strategy of proceeding without L “as a defense witness was unreasonable, given that he could not have known that the proceedings against her would conclude in her favor, much less conclude in time for her to testify for defendant.” Affidavits from two other potential witnesses were also not part of the trial court record and did not support a finding that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call them as witnesses. As to the failure to call C to testify, nothing indicated that C had any independent recollection of his interview with witness-T “such that he would have been able to testify to anything else she might have said or not said that was not included in her written statement.” Thus, it was not reasonably likely that the outcome would have been different if C had been called to testify.