Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH) and felony-firearm convictions; People v. Brown; People v. Moore; Aiding & abetting; People v. Robinson; Motive; People v. Unger; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Lockett; People v. Grant; Failure to pursue a meritless position; People v. Mitchell; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Dunigan; People v. Payne; Failure to object to the scoring of OVs 4 & 13; People v. Hicks; People v. Williams; People v. McDonald; People v. Gibbs; People v. Bonilla-Machado; Failure to raise a futile objection; People v. Crews; Scoring of OV 14; People v. Rhodes (On Remand); Effect of a scoring error that does not alter the guidelines range; People v. Francisco

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s AWIGBH and felony-firearm convictions under an aiding and abetting theory, the court affirmed her convictions. It also rejected her ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and upheld her sentences, concluding that any error in the scoring of OV 14 could not have altered the applicable guidelines range. It was undisputed that defendant’s passenger assaulted the victim (H) by shooting her. The evidence showed that defendant had a motive to harm H. She was extremely angry with her ex-boyfriend (W), who was H’s cousin and lived at H’s home. She “was so angry that she tried to hit [W] with her car and also tried to break out the windows of [H’s] home.” Even after W left, and the police were called, “defendant came back to the home, challenging [H] to a fight and threatening her.” It was undisputed that she “left in her car, only to return in it a short time later along with a man who carried a powerful ‘long gun’ capable of shooting ammunition that could pass through the home and its contents unabated. She threw a toy truck at the home, then ran back to her car.” When H came outside, “defendant’s passenger exited the vehicle and opened fire, shooting [H].” The court concluded that while circumstantial, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of AWIGBH under an aiding and abetting theory. “By taking affirmative steps to lure [H] outside so she could be shot, defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the assault, and she did so either intending to aid the assault or knowing her passenger intended to assault [H].” The trial court also reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence that defendant intentionally lured H outside, knowing her passenger intended to assault H with a high-powered firearm. By doing so, she aided and abetted a felony-firearm violation.