Great weight of the evidence; People v. Lemmon; People v. Perry; The trial court’s failure to ensure that defendant had appropriate attire for trial & refusal to allow him to wear a suit provided by defense counsel; People v. Lewis; Failure to strike testimony from the arresting officer; MRE 401; Failure to provide a curative instruction; Prosecutorial error; People v. Watson; People v. Dobek; People v. Long; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to ensure that defendant had appropriate attire for court; Failure to object to the officer’s testimony; Failure to establish that no guns or ammunition were discovered; Failure to adequately question a witness; Cumulative effects of alleged errors; Sentencing; Use of an erroneous guidelines range; People v. Francisco; Habitual-offender notice; MCL 769.12; MCL 769.13(1) & (2); People v. Head; MCR 6.112(H); Assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM); Felon in possession (FIP)

The court determined that the jury’s verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not violate defendant’s due process rights, and that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. But, as the prosecution conceded, because the trial court erroneously sentenced him using the incorrect guidelines range, he was entitled to be resentenced. Finally, the trial court did not plainly err by sentencing him as a fourth-offense habitual offender. He was convicted of AWIM, FIP of a firearm, FIP of ammunition, and felony-firearm, second offense. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent prison terms of 20 years to 20 years and 1 day for assault, and 2 to 3 years for each FIP conviction, to be served consecutive to a 5-year term for felony-firearm. Defendant argued that he should receive a new trial because the great weight of the evidence failed to show that he was the shooter, particularly because victim-M testified that the shooter was wearing all black, but witness-E, “who was with defendant, testified that defendant was wearing a blue and yellow jacket.” The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, supported his identity as the shooter. It noted that “the jury was aware of the conflict in the clothing descriptions of defendant and the shooter. Defense counsel cross-examined both [M] and [E], clearly emphasizing the conflict in what [E] stated that defendant was wearing and what [M] claimed the shooter was wearing, and presented credibility arguments to the jury, including that defendant could not be the shooter.” However, it was within the jury’s province to “discount the accuracy or reliability of [M’s] description of the shooter’s clothing, and find that defendant’s identity as the shooter was established by the evidence that the gunshots were fired approximately a minute after defendant abruptly altered his course to proceed between the same buildings where [M] had walked, and the testimony that no one else was in the area.” The evidence did “not preponderate so heavily against the jury’s verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand.” Affirmed but remanded for resentencing.