Permissive joinder of charges; MCR 6.120(B); “Related” crimes; People v. Gaines; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); People v. Starr; People v. Sabin (After Remand); People v. Knox; Proper purpose; People v. Johnigan; MRE 403; People v. Watkins; Unfair prejudice; People v. Wilson; Lewis v. Legrow; Identification testimony; People v. Kurylczyk; An unduly suggestive identification procedure; People v. McDade; Whether it was necessary to establish an independent basis for the in-court identification; People v. McElhaney; People v. Laidlaw; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Taylor; People v. Jordan; Failure to advance a meritless argument; People v. Ericksen

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing joinder of the charges against defendant involving two victims in separate incidents, or in allowing evidence of an uncharged act. Further, the court found no issues with the challenged pretrial identifications of defendant and thus, also rejected his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to them. He was convicted of armed robbery and unarmed robbery in these consolidated cases. The court noted that the “two robberies were in proximate geographic locations, and occurred within days of each other during a time in which defendant had a negative bank balance.” He suddenly approached the women as they “had recently left their vehicles while in a parking lot and were preoccupied with a task. Defendant used physical force on both” to overcome any resistance, and took a purse in the one incident and a wallet in the other before fleeing. His “acts of surprising women who had just left their vehicles, while they were distracted, during a discrete period of time in which he lacked money and had been abusing drugs, in proximate locations, and in order to rob them after using physical force to control or intimidate them, constituted a series of acts that demonstrated an overall scheme or plan to rob vulnerable women in a specific way.” He claimed that joinder was inappropriate due to witness inconvenience and that the number of charges confused the jury. But “joinder would have been more convenient for the detectives, whose investigations overlapped, because they were required to testify only at one trial instead of two. Similarly, the victims only had to testify once but would have had to testify in one trial as a complainant and in another to provide evidence of defendant’s other acts.” Further, only two charges were “joined, and there was no evidence of jury confusion.” As to the other acts evidence from a third woman about an attempted robbery, it “was relevant and used for a proper purpose because defendant was charged with robbery,” and it showed his “common plan and consistent style of executing the robberies.” The court also found that none of the Watkins factors indicated it was unfairly prejudicial. In addition, he failed to show that the witnesses’ identifications of him in photographic lineups were unreliable. Affirmed.