Preliminary exam; People v Laws; The magistrate’s role; People v King; Bindover; People v Hudson; Receiving & concealing stolen property; People v Pratt; Motion to quash; MCR 6.008(B); Due process; Judicial bias; People v Jackson; Amendment of an indictment; MCL 767.76; People v McGee; Amendment of an information to add new charges; MCR 6.112(H); Unfair surprise; People v Hunt; Right to counsel; Self-representation & waiver; MCR 6.005(D); People v Anderson; Substantial compliance; People v Adkins; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Randolph; Right to a properly instructed jury; Sufficiency of the evidence; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 19 (interference with the administration of justice); MCL 777.49(c); People v Barbee

The court held that trial court did not err by allowing amendment of the information, by granting defendant’s request to waive counsel and allow him to proceed in propria persona, or by scoring 10 points for OV 19. It also held that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. He was convicted of breaking and entering a vehicle, causing damage to the vehicle, and sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 46 months to 10 years. On appeal, the court first found that the trial court’s decision to allow amendment of the information did not pierce the veil of impartiality or prejudice defendant, and was not unsupported by the preliminary exam evidence or an abuse of discretion. “It does not appear that the trial court held any belief as to defendant’s guilt or innocence and it showed no deep-seated antagonism toward defendant.” In addition, the trial court did not “simply amend the information on its own,” and defendant was not “unfairly surprised or prejudiced by” it. Further, there was “sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish probable cause to believe that the crime of breaking and entering causing damage to a vehicle was committed and that defendant committed it.” Moreover, amendment of the information was supported by the preliminary exam evidence. The court also rejected his claim that his request to represent himself at trial was not unequivocal and voluntary because he made the request only out of desperation when he felt his attorney was unprepared. “The record reflects that the trial court conscientiously complied with every requirement of MCR 6.005(D) and Anderson, exceeding the ‘substantial compliance’ required under Adkins.” It next rejected his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, noting he could not “logically, challenge the qualify or effectiveness of his representation of himself on appeal.” It further rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of breaking and entering a motor vehicle causing damage to the vehicle, finding each of the elements was met. Finally, it rejected his claim that the trial court erred by scoring 10 points for OV 19, noting the score was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Affirmed.