Relief from judgment; Grounds raised & rejected in a prior appeal; MCR 6.508(D)(2); Sufficiency of the evidence challenge; Credibility; Prosecutorial misconduct; Sequestration of a victim; MCL 780.761; Prejudice; People v Solak; Denial of reconsideration; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Waiver of the preliminary exam, failure to call witnesses defendant suggested, failure to impeach the victims during their testimonies, & failure to object to the prosecution’s introduction of other acts evidence

Finding no errors warranting reversal, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for relief from judgment. He was convicted of CSC I. He alleged that “a police report showed the victims fabricated the claims of abuse and conspired against him because he ended his relationship with” their mother. The court found that defendant was “not entitled to relief from judgment because this ground was raised and rejected in the prior appeal.” In addition, he relied “on statements made by the victims as reported by others.” However, he failed to show “the police reports contained contradictory statements and that the police reports were admissible; in fact, they generally contain inadmissible hearsay.” Further, although he attached affidavits to his motion “opining that an incident of sexual abuse could not have occurred while the family attended a funeral, the attempt to create a dispute regarding location is not dispositive. First, the trier of fact has the right to disregard all, part, or none of the testimony of a witness.” Thus, the court concluded that “the jury could have found that the sexual abuse occurred even if the victims’ misidentified the location. Additionally, the information in the affidavits regarding location existed prior to trial, and defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to raise such grounds on appeal.” The court also noted that the affidavits identified the location of the funeral in another county, “defendant was not charged for this offense, and it was offered as” other acts evidence. Accordingly, “because a convicted offense did not arise from the sexual abuse in Montcalm County, any challenge to jurisdiction was without merit and not a ground for relief from judgment. Moreover, defendant’s challenge to the credibility of the witnesses was thoroughly explored during trial and rejected by the jury and by this Court in his claim of appeal as of right.” As to the claim the prosecution violated a sequestration order by allowing the victims to be in the courtroom before they testified, he failed to establish prejudice. The court also rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.