Claim that an 18-month delay in effecting the defendant’s arrest violated his rights to due process, to a fair trial, to present a defense, & to confrontation; People v. Musser; United States v. Marion; United States v. Lovasco; People v. Woolfolk; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Carbin; Strickland v. Washington; Failure to make a meritless motion; People v. Comella; Sentencing; Reasonableness; People v. Lockridge; Principle of proportionality; People v. Steanhouse; People v. Milbourn; Effect of the trial court’s consideration of defendant’s motion for resentencing; People v. Masroor & the federal “reasonableness” standard articulated in Gall v. United States; Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH); Felon in possession (FIP)

Concluding that the defendant presented no evidence of actual and substantial prejudice, and instead generally speculated that the passage of time affected his ability to locate evidence or witnesses, the court rejected his claim that the approximately 18-month delay in his arrest violated his rights to due process, to a fair trial, to present a defense, and to confront the evidence and witnesses against him. It also held that he failed to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and that his sentencing challenges had no merit. Thus, it affirmed his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, unlawful imprisonment, CSC II, AWIGBH, FIP, felonious assault, and felony-firearm, second offense. He claimed that the arrest delay prejudiced him because (1) it prevented him from being able to prove that he had entered into a relocation agreement to establish that the house where the crimes occurred (the Linda Vista house) was no longer his and (2) “he was unable to obtain evidence or witnesses from Fed Ex to establish that the victim had arranged to have a package delivered to the Linda Vista address.” He did not claim that “the police or prosecution intentionally delayed his arrest in order to gain some tactical advantage.” Further, assuming that there was a relocation agreement and that “the victim was awaiting a Fed Ex package, this would not establish that someone other than defendant beat the victim. She graphically described the beating she received from defendant. Evidence that defendant did not own the Linda Vista home (which was not disputed) and that the victim had requested delivery of a Fed Ex package to that address (if true) did not negate the incontrovertible facts that she was severely beaten, that the scene at the home supported her claim that she was beaten there,” and that her purse was found in the trunk of the car he had been driving. Further, her mother “supported her explanation of why she had gone to the Linda Vista house and her claim that she and defendant had gone into the house together,” and “she unequivocally and immediately named defendant as her assailant and the man who took her property.” It also would not explain why he “evidently hid from the police for almost 18 months or why he initially denied his identity when he was finally apprehended.”