Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Murphy; People v. Wolfe; People v. Nowack; Whether defendant possessed & used a gun during the incident; Felonious assault; MCL 750.82(1); People v. Avant; Felon in possession (FIP); MCL 750.224f(1); Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW); MCL 750.227(2); Felony-firearm; MCL 750.227b(1); Juror bias; People v. Miller; People v. Bryant; People v. Schaw; Ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failing to immediately request permission to conduct necessary follow-up as to alleged juror bias out of the presence of the rest of the jury; Strickland v. Washington; Speedy trial; People v. Williams; U.S. Const. amend. VI; Const. 1963, art 1, § 20; Barker v. Wingo; People v. Collins; United States v. Marion; People v. Waclawski; Doggett v. United States; MCR 6.004(A); Sentencing; People v. McGraw; People v. Hardy; People v. Lopez; Scoring of 10 points for OVs 4; People v. White; Whether resentencing was required; People v. Francisco

Rejecting defendant’s claims of juror bias, ineffective assistance of counsel, and violation of the right to a speedy trial, the court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he possessed and used a gun during the incident that led to his convictions. Thus, it affirmed his felonious assault, FIP, CCW, and felony-firearm convictions. However, it reversed and remanded for resentencing. He argued that there was insufficient evidence that a gun was actually involved in the “road rage” incident and thus, that he was improperly convicted of felonious assault and the firearm offenses flowing from that charge. “The victim testified that defendant put his head and right hand out the window, waved ‘a pistol’ around that he held with his right hand, and then pointed the gun at the victim. The victim described the gun with specificity as a small, semiautomatic, ‘subcompact style gun’ with a ‘large barrel hold’ and a black matte finish. A police officer that responded to the victim’s 911 call testified that the victim reported that defendant pointed a gun at him.” In light of this testimony, “a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed a gun.” Although he argued that the victim could have mistaken black gloves for a gun and noted that no gun was ever recovered from him, the prosecutor was “only required to ‘convince the jury in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant may provide’” and did not have to “negate every reasonable theory consistent with innocence.” Further, the testimony reflected that he “was not apprehended until several hours after the assault occurred, which would have allowed him plenty of time to dispose of the weapon.” As to defendant’s challenge to the victim’s credibility given his inconsistent descriptions of the incident, defense counsel “cross-examined the victim and the responding police officer regarding inconsistencies between the victim’s trial testimony, his preliminary examination testimony, and his report to the police officers.” It was for the jury to determine the witnesses’ credibility “and the weight to be given to the evidence.” However, the court remanded for resentencing because the trial court erred in scoring 10 points for OV 4 and correcting this altered his guidelines range.