Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Matuszak; People v. Moore; People v. Payne; Failure to raise a meritless or novel argument; People v. Ericksen; People v. Crews; Failure to request a jury instruction on defense of others; People v. Everett; People v. Mills; Effect of a defendant being the initial aggressor; People v. Riddle; Third-degree home invasion; MCL 750.110a(4)(a); Malicious destruction of a building under $200; MCL 750.380(5); The Self-Defense Act (MCL 780.971 et seq.); Defense of others; MCL 780.972(2); MCL 780.973; People v. Dupree; People v. Traver; Failure to present certain evidence; People v. Lane; Trial strategy; People v. Dunigan; People v. Carbin; Advising defendant to reject a plea offer before trial; People v. Geno; Laffler v. Cooper; Sentencing; Proportionality; People v. Lockridge; People v. Steanhouse; People v. Milbourn; People v. Smith; People v. Walden; People v. Dixon-Bey; People v. Lawhorn; OV 19; MCL 777.49(a); People v. Carpenter; Abandoned issue; People v. McGraw

The court held that both defendants were not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Also, as to defendant-Jeremiah Leffew, the trial court articulated sufficient support for the out-of-guidelines sentence it imposed, and acted within its discretion and imposed a reasonable sentence, one “that was proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” Defendant-Micheline Leffew was convicted of third-degree home invasion for which she was sentenced to serve five months in jail followed by a two-year term of probation. Jeremiah (her husband) was convicted of first-degree home invasion and felonious assault. He was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to concurrent prison terms of 25 to 40 years for home invasion, and 2 to 8 years for felonious assault. Micheline argued that her counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on defense of others. The court held that notwithstanding “defense counsel may have succeeded in presenting a case at trial premised on Micheline having acted in defense of” another individual, “the defense case depended on a novel application of the law,” and therefore it “would have been an even more novel legal argument for Micheline’s counsel to have sought a jury instruction that effectively would have declared the law to be consistent with the defense presented. Simply put, the fact that a defense may have been presented does not mean that the law must be presented as if it conforms to that defense.” Further, it did not appear that the failure to request the instruction had any effect on the verdict. Jeremiah argued that his trial counsel was ineffective in advising him to reject a plea offer before trial. After a Ginther hearing, the trial court determined that his counsel was not ineffective. “While there was some conflicting testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the trial court’s factual conclusions are entitled to deference.” The court held that he “failed to establish that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Affirmed.