Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Gioglio (On Remand); People v. Lockett; People v. Grant; Cullen v. Pinholster; Trial strategy; People v. Payne; People v. Cooper; Court costs; Whether the trial court has the authority to impose court costs; MCL 769.1k; People v. Konopka

[Unpublished opinion.] The court held that the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not err by ordering him to pay $600 in court costs. He was convicted of armed robbery, felon in possession, and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to serve 12 to 30 years in prison for the armed robbery conviction, 1 to 5 years for the felon in possession conviction, and 5 years for the felony-firearm conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to present expert testimony as to the fallibility of eyewitness identifications. It noted that “his lawyer might have felt that hiring an expert to lecture the jury on the obvious would have had a negative impact on the jury’s assessment of the evidence or appeared desperate. Given the deficiencies in the witnesses’ testimony,” defense counsel “might reasonably have concluded that the best way to establish reasonable doubt as to the eyewitnesses’ identification would be through cross examination.” Thus, defendant failed to “overcome the strong presumption that his lawyer’s decision fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct.” The court also rejected his argument that because the trial court “lacked statutory authority” to impose court costs against him at the time of his sentencing, his sentence must be vacated to the extent it required him to pay $600 in court costs. It found that although the statute did not authorize the trial court to assess court costs at the time of his sentencing, the Legislature has since amended the statute to retroactively authorize such assessments, and the court in Konopka held that “the amendment must be enforced and does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights.” Further, unlike the defendant in Konopka, defendant “did not challenge the reasonableness of the court costs or their factual basis.” Thus, he failed to identify any error warranting relief. Affirmed.