Ineffective assistance of counsel; United States v. Cronic; People v. Pubrat; People v. Solmonson; People v. Heft; People v. Trakhtenberg; Prejudice; People v. Grant; Trial strategy; People v. Rice (On Remand); People v. Horn; People v. Petri; Whether an actual conflict of interest affected counsel’s performance; People v. Smith; People v. Davenport; Presumption of prejudice; MRPC 1.9(b) & 1.10(b); Competency; Presumption that criminal defendants are competent to stand trial; MCL 330.2020(1); People v. Abraham; Challenges to competency; MCL 300.2024; MCR 6.125(B); People v. Blocker; People v. Mette; A trial court’s obligation to sua sponte raise the issue of competency; People v. Kammeraad; People v. Harris; Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; People v. Uphaus (On Remand); Selection of appellate counsel; MCL 780.712(6); Prosecutorial error; Exculpatory evidence; Brady v. Maryland; People v. Chenault; People v. Miller; Disclosure of evidence by the defense; MCL 767.94a; MCR 6.201; Prosecutorial latitude; People v. Seals; People v. Unger; Principle that a prosecutor may not knowingly use false testimony to obtain a conviction; People v. Aceval; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Lundy; Felonious assault; MCL 750.82(1); People v. Chambers; Domestic assault; MCL 750.81(2); “Assault” defined; People v. Cameron; Inciting or procuring perjury in a court proceeding; MCL 750.425; “Perjury” defined; People v. Lively; Witness intimidation; MCL 750.122(3); Judicial bias; People v. Jackson; Presumption of impartiality; People v. Wells; Adjournment; MCR 2.503(C)(2); Right to present a defense; People v. King; People v. Herndon

[Unpublished opinion.] The court held that the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel for failure to raise the issue of his competency because there was nothing on the record to indicate that he was incompetent at the time of trial. He was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence, inciting or procuring perjury in a court proceeding, and intimidating a witness. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent prison terms of 4 to 15 years for the assault convictions, 3 years and 9 months to 15 years for the procuring perjury and witness intimidation convictions, and 93 days for the domestic violence conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and pursue a challenge to his competency. “There is no evidence on the record in this case that defendant was unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him. In fact, the record is replete with examples indicating the opposite.” Further, the record evidence established that he “actively assisted with” his defense, and “there was nothing on the record that would raise a question as to” his competence. The fact that “defendant sustained allegedly serious head trauma when he was a teenager, has limited bearing on whether he was incompetent to stand trial in 2012 when he was in his early 30s” and the fact that he “had numerous convictions after his head injury indicates that he apparently did not have any mental health issues or competency concerns that barred those proceedings.” Moreover, the fact that he “has had multiple trial attorneys representing him does not appear to be the result of incompetence on defendant’s part.” Finally, the court rejected the arguments in his Standard IV brief, finding them meritless. Affirmed.