Docket No. 323081 – Defendant-Reco Simmons - Ineffective assistance of counsel; Admitting in closing argument he was guilty of murder, but only in the second-degree; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Rockey; Florida v. Nixon; Failure to consult with Reco before committing to the strategy; People v. Emerson (On Remand); Docket No. 323162 – Defendant-Aquire Simmons – Judicial bias; Whether he was deprived of a fair trial by comments made by the trial court during voir dire; People v. Stevens; Cain v. Department of Corrs.; Whether the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting “hearsay” statements under the exception for statements against interest; MRE 804(b)(3); People v. Taylor; People v. Poole; People v. Barrera; Severance of trials; People v. Bosca; People v. Hana; People v. Waclawski; Sentencing; Whether the trial court made an independent finding that he was guilty of murder despite the fact that the jury acquitted him of murder; People v. Compagnari; Docket No. 323229 – defendant-Fredrick Young – Sufficiency of the evidence to support a first-degree home invasion conviction; Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH)

Defendant-Reco Simmons was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Defendant-Aquire Simmons was not deprived of a fair trial by comments made by the trial court during voir dire, admission of challenged statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and his statements were admissible under MRE 804(b)(3). Finally, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Fredrick Young’s conviction of first-degree home invasion. The case arose out of an armed robbery and murder. Reco was convicted of second-degree murder, armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, and felony-firearm. His brother and codefendant Aquire was convicted of AWIGBH, armed robbery, and first-degree home invasion. Fredrick was convicted of first-degree home invasion. On appeal, Reco argued that counsel was ineffective for admitting in closing argument he was guilty of murder, but only in the second-degree. “At trial, substantial evidence of Reco’s involvement in the crimes was presented.” The evidence included multiple witnesses who testified that another man involved in the crimes told another individual that Reco shot victim-J, as well as Reco’s statement to his aunt, in which Reco admitted firing at J. “Recognizing that this evidence would likely result in a murder conviction, defense counsel argued in closing that ‘the verdict in this case is guilty. But the question is guilty of what? Is it first degree—excuse me. First degree felony murder? Is it second degree?’” Reco argued that by admitting guilt, trial counsel was ineffective. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, “in cases where a client’s guilt is clear, such a strategy may well be reasonable. Given the evidence admitted at trial, which overwhelmingly demonstrated that Reco was a participant in a robbery during which a victim was shot and killed, and moreover, that Reco was likely the shooter, pleading for leniency in the form of a sentence of second-degree murder was a reasonable strategy. It was also successful. Despite strong evidence” that he was guilty of first-degree murder, the jury convicted him only of second-degree murder, allowing him to “avoid the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole that would attach to a first-degree murder conviction.” The court will “not second guess counsel’s trial tactic of admitting guilt of a lesser offense.” Affirmed.