Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v. Washington; People v. Pickens; Prejudice; People v. Messenger; Failure to present a duress defense & to request a jury instruction on the defense; People v. Daniel; People v. Barnett; Alleged lack of preparation; People v. Caballero; Failure to move to sever defendant-Williams’s trial from that of a codefendant; MCR 6.121(D); People v. Hana; Failure to make a futile motion; People v. Ericksen; Failure to object to the playing of a jail recording; People v. Wise; Sufficiency of the evidence to support Williams’s convictions on an aiding & abetting theory; MCL 767.39; People v. Smielewski; People v. Washburn; Intent; People v. Robinson; People v. Fetterley; Mere presence; People v. Wilson; Whether the evidence of defendant-Dudley’s identity as one of the perpetrators was sufficient to support his convictions; People v. Yost; People v. Newby; People v. Abernathy; Admission of an audio recording of Dudley’s police interrogation; MRE 403; Presumption jurors follow their instructions; People v. Petri; Cumulative/prosecutorial error; People v. Cooper; People v. Unger; Good-faith effort to admit evidence; People v. Abraham; Principle that pointing out the weakness of a defense theory is not prosecutorial error; People v. Fields

Rejecting defendant-Williams’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and holding that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions on an aiding and abetting theory, the court affirmed his convictions of armed robbery, assault with intent to commit armed robbery, and felony-firearm. It also held that there was sufficient evidence of defendant-Dudley’s identity as one of the perpetrators to support his convictions of the same crimes, and that the admission of an audio recording of his police interview did not result in plain error affecting his substantial rights. Further, it rejected his prosecutorial and cumulative error claims. Thus, it also affirmed Dudley’s convictions. Williams’s trial attorney was not ineffective for deciding “to pursue the defense of non-involvement over the defense of duress, and for not requesting a jury instruction on the defense that counsel did not advance.” The court rejected his claims that his counsel was not prepared for the trial and was ineffective for not moving to sever his trial from Dudley’s, agreeing with the trial court that defense counsel “presented a vigorous defense” and concluding that a motion for severance would have been futile. As to the jail recording, the “trial court did not err by recognizing as legitimate strategy defense counsel’s decision to agree to a limited presentation of the recording rather than risk having the prosecution make more damaging use of it as a consequence of an unsuccessful effort to bar its admission entirely.” The evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable fact-finder to determine that “Williams acted with the intent to facilitate the commission of a robbery.” The court also rejected Dudley’s claim that the prosecution failed to prove his identity as one of the robbers, noting that three eyewitnesses identified him as a perpetrator “from having seen him earlier on the day of the robbery when his face was not covered, and having noticed that one of the masked robbers was wearing clothing similar to what Dudley was wearing” earlier. The two sightings took place within hours of each other. Also, two of the witnesses testified that they were already familiar with Dudley.