Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Gioglio (On Remand); Strickland v. Washington; Expansion of the record on appeal; People v. Nix; Admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes; MRE 609(a)(2); Factual predicate; People v. Carbin; Sentencing; People v. Lockridge; Scoring of OV 3; Whether a life threatening or permanent incapacitating injury occurred to a victim; MCL 777.33(1)(c); Double jeopardy; Principle that a defendant may not be convicted of both felonious assault under MCL 750.82 & assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH) under MCL 750.84 for the same conduct; People v McKewen; People v. Strawther; People v. Wilson

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that there were no errors in sentencing. However, it also held that he could not be convicted for both AWIGBH and felonious assault arising from the same conduct. Thus, it vacated the lesser conviction of felonious assault and the sentence for this offense, but affirmed his remaining convictions and sentences. He was convicted of AWIGBH, felonious assault, carrying a concealed pistol, felon in possession, and felony-firearm for his involvement in a bar fight. The trial court sentenced him, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, to 2 years for his felony-firearm conviction, 6 to 15 years for his AWIGBH conviction, and 2 to 15 years for each of his remaining convictions. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel should have impeached one of the witnesses against him, AS, with AS’s prior conviction of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny. “Defendant cannot establish that defense counsel’s failure to impeach [AS] with evidence of a prior conviction would have affected the outcome at trial because defense counsel sufficiently brought [his] credibility—as well as the credibility of” the victim and another witness, AS’s brother—into question. In addition, the evidence strongly supported his guilt, including blood evidence corroborating the prosecution witnesses’ testimony. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by assessing 25 points for OV 3 because there was no evidence that the victim suffered a life-threatening injury. However, it found merit to the contention in his Standard IV brief that it was a violation of double jeopardy to punish him for both felonious assault and AWIGBH arising from the same act.