Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of AWIGBH, carjacking, & third-degree home invasion; People v. Blevins; People v. Barber; MCL 750.84(1)(a) & (b); MCL 750.529a; MCL 750.110a(4)(b); People v. Crews; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; A prosecutor’s use of leading questions with a child witness; MRE 611(d)(1); Failure to raise a futile objection; Matters of trial strategy; Failure to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation & to call defendant as a witness; A substantial defense; People v. Russell; Prejudice; Waiver of the right to testify; People v. McDonald; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 10 & 13; MCL 777.40(1)(c); People v. Cannon; MCL 777.43(1)(c) & (2)(a); People v. Gibbs

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s AWIGBH, carjacking, and third-degree home invasion convictions, and rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court affirmed his convictions. It also affirmed his sentences, upholding the 5-point score for OV 10 and 25-point score for OV 13. He was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to 13 to 30 years for carjacking, 6 to 20 years for AWIGBH, and 3 to 10 years for third-degree home invasion. The court concluded that the victim’s testimony was sufficient for the jury to find “that defendant was guilty of AWIGBH with strangulation because she testified that he punched her repeatedly and strangled her. The prosecution also presented photographic evidence of the injuries the victim sustained in the attack. After stealing a purse from his mother, defendant attempted to carjack the victim. The victim’s testimony included that defendant repeatedly bludgeoned her over the head, pushed her out of her car, strangled her, and ultimately succeeded in driving away with the car. By using force and violence in the process of stealing the victim’s vehicle, a jury could” determine that he committed a carjacking. In addition, there was evidence showing that he entered his mother’s home in violation of a PPO that ordered him to stay away from her. Regardless of his claim that he had her permission “to live in the home, he explicitly violated MCL 750.110a(4)(b), and thus committed third-degree home invasion by entering the home in violation of a PPO.” The court also disagreed with his claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) object to the prosecution’s leading questions to a child witness; (2) “conduct a thorough pretrial investigation and call defendant as a witness; and” (3) object to the scoring of OVs 10 and 13. As to the OV scoring, with regard to OV 10 the court concluded that he “had greater physical strength than the victim,” which he used to his advantage in committing the carjacking. Further, he “committed a series of crimes against persons within a” 5-year period that justified the 25-point score for OV 13.