Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Schrauben; People v. Vaughn; People v. Hoag; People v. Ginther; Trial strategy; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Dunigan; People v. Stewart (On Remand); People v. Dalesandro; Failure to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection; People v. Ericksen; Counsel’s refusal to knowingly assist in the presentation of perjured testimony; People v. Toma; Alibi defense; MCL 768.20 & 21; People v. Travis; People v. Seals; Great weight of the evidence; People v. Cameron; People v. Herbert; People v. Lemmon; People v. Anderson; Credibility; People v. Davis; People v. Goodchild; People v. Morlock; Principle that eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the commission of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt; People v. Thomas; Sentencing; The legislative sentencing guidelines (MCL 777.1 et seq.); MCL 769.34(2) & (3); People v. Lockridge; People v. Conley; Scoring of OVs 1, 3, & 10; Habitual offender notice; People v. Head

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. However, it found that remand was required for articulation of the trial court’s reasons for imposing the sentences. He was convicted of FIP, felony-firearm, felonious assault, and aggravated domestic violence for attacking and pistol-whipping his girlfriend. The trial court sentenced him as an habitual offender, third offense, to 2 to 10 years for FIP, 5 years for felony-firearm second-offense, 2 to 5 years for felonious assault, and time served for aggravated domestic violence. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and file a notice of an alibi defense. Although the trial court after the Ginther hearing “found that that [defendant’s father’s] version was not credible, the testimony cited by [his father] and the court’s ultimate holding indicates that defense counsel acted in a manner designed to present defendant’s theory while abiding by his ethical obligation addressing the presentation of evidence.” The court also rejected his claim that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, finding the evidence was “sufficient to apprise the trier of fact that an assault with a weapon occurred upon the victim, she identified defendant as her assailant, and the eyewitness and police officer presented circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences to support her testimony.” Finally, it agreed with defendant that he was entitled to resentencing where the trial court recalculated the sentencing guideline range on remand, but imposed the same sentence without explanation. “Because the trial court did not articulate reasons for imposing the second sentence despite the reduction of the guidelines after removing the OV scores,” remand for an articulation of the reasons for imposing the sentence was required. Affirmed, but remanded.