Waiver of jury instruction claim; Sufficiency of the evidence for FIP, felony-firearm, & CCW; Possession; Ineffective assistance of counsel

The court held that defendant waived his jury instruction error claim, that there was sufficient evidence of possession to support his FIP, felony-firearm, and CCW convictions, and that he failed to establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. While he asserted on appeal that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, “defense counsel repeatedly stated that he had no objection to the jury instructions and that he approved of the instructions. By repeatedly and explicitly approving of the jury instructions, defendant waived the right to contest” them. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the officer (O) who pursued him the morning of his arrest “testified that while he was chasing defendant, he saw defendant throw a gun over a backyard fence. Another officer testified that he found a gun in a backyard near the location where he was told defendant had thrown a gun.” The court concluded that this evidence would allow a rational trier of fact to find “beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant actually possessed the firearm that was recovered by police.” While he contended that O’s testimony was not corroborated by the footage from his “body camera, and that the prosecution did not present any fingerprint or DNA evidence connecting defendant to the gun[,]” the court noted that it was for the jury to determine the credibility of O’s testimony and the weight to give the trial evidence. Finally, as to his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the jury instruction on the elements of FIP and felony-firearm, he “failed to rebut the strong presumption that defense counsel’s performance was reasonable. The jury instruction at issue was taken verbatim from” M Crim JI 11.34 and the trial court was required to give this instruction “because it was applicable, it accurately stated the law, and a party requested that the instruction be read.” An objection by defense counsel would have been meritless. Affirmed.