Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Failure to call a particular witness; People v Seals; Prejudice; People v Isrow

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a new trial because he failed to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel or that he was prejudiced by defense counsel’s alleged mistakes. He was convicted of CSC I, CSC II, and aggravated indecent exposure for molesting his stepdaughter. On appeal, the court rejected his argument the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial because defense counsel was ineffective. “The record does not provide enough evidence for defendant to overcome the ‘strong presumption’ that defense counsel’s decision not to investigate or call” defendant’s son to testify was a sound trial strategy. “Defense counsel made a strategic choice not to waste time and resources investigating [this] potential testimony after defendant represented that [his son] would not know anything.” As such, the trial court did not err when it found “defense counsel’s decision to forego investigating or calling” defendant’s son as a witness did not constitute deficient performance. In addition, defendant failed to show there was a reasonable probability that his son’s testimony would have changed the outcome of his trial. And his arguments fell “short of overcoming the strong presumption that defense counsel’s decisions were the product of sound trial strategy”. Further, even if the court were to find “defense counsel’s performance was deficient because he did not adequately discuss trial strategies with defendant or prepare defendant to testify, defendant cannot show that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different but for the deficient performance.” Affirmed.