Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Meshell; People v. Bulls; Circumstantial evidence; People v. Carines; People v. Allen; Credibility; People v. Eisen; People v. Kanaan; Felonious assault; People v. Bosca; People v. Avant; Felon in possession; People v. Dupree; Felony-firearm; Actual & constructive possession; People v. Burgenmeyer; People v. Wolfe; People v. Harper; Possession with intent to deliver marijuana; People v. Williams; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Heft; Presumption of effective assistance; People v. Solmonson; Trial strategy; People v. Sabin; People v. Unger; Failure to raise meritless or futile objections; People v. Moorer; Presumption that advising a defendant not to testify is sound trial strategy; People v. Tommolino; Principle that the ultimate decision whether to testify at trial remains with the defendant; People v. Bonilla-Machado; Evidentiary hearing; People v. McMillan

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s convictions of felonious assault, felon in possession, felony-firearm, and possession with intent to deliver or manufacture less than five kilograms of marijuana. It also held that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a Ginther hearing. The court rejected his contention that insufficient evidence was presented to convict him of felonious assault, felon in possession, and felony-firearm because he did not possess a gun. As to his felonious assault conviction, it found that “sufficient evidence was presented to establish defendant assaulted [the officer] with a .357 magnum revolver, a dangerous weapon.” As to his felon in possession and felony-firearm convictions, it noted that the parties stipulated that defendant had been previously convicted of a felony and “a rational trier of fact could find that defendant was in possession of a firearm and that” he was a convicted felon. Thus, sufficient evidence was presented to convict him of felon in possession, and because “sufficient evidence was presented to establish that defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of felonious assault and felon in possession, sufficient evidence was also presented to convict” him of felony-firearm. It also rejected his argument that insufficient evidence was presented to convict him of possession with intent to deliver or manufacture less than five kilograms of marijuana because no evidence was presented that he actually possessed the marijuana. “A rational trier of fact could find there was a sufficient nexus between the marijuana and defendant to conclude that defendant had constructive possession of the marijuana.” As to his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, it noted that defense counsel’s “decision not to pursue fingerprint analysis of the gun” was sound trial strategy because “the analysis could have potentially revealed that defendant’s fingerprints were, in fact, the only prints on the gun and marijuana, which would have certainly been more damaging to defendant’s case.” Next, defendant “failed to demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness for advising and convincing” him not to testify at trial. Further, he never established that a motion to suppress the gun would have been successful. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion for a Ginther hearing, as he failed to show “evidence of a factual dispute which might, if further developed,” possibly be resolved in his favor. Affirmed.