Speedy trial; People v Williams; Use of interactive video technology in jury selection; MCR 6.006(A); Jury instructions on first-degree home invasion; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the jury instructions & to request an accidental-entry instruction; Sentencing; Reliance on acquitted conduct; People v Beck; Scoring of OV 3

Rejecting his speedy trial, jury selection, and jury instruction claims, the court affirmed defendant-James’s convictions. But it reversed his sentences and remanded for resentencing where “the trial court clearly fashioned a sentence based upon acquitted conduct.” He was convicted of first-degree home invasion and assault and battery. He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent prison sentences of 150 months to 20 years for home invasion, and 93 days for assault and battery. “James had a period of incarceration of 17 months and 18 days between arrest and trial. This delay was more than the 180 days that the Legislature has deemed reasonable for a person in custody to be brought to trial, . . . but less than the 18-months that courts presume prejudicial.” As to the reasons for the delay, it was “undisputed that the COVID-19 pandemic and our Supreme Court’s orders in response to it were responsible for the greater part of it.” The delay from arrest to trial was not imputed to the prosecution. And any personal prejudice he “experienced was attributable at least in part to his own behavior that compromised his prospects for release on bond.” He failed to show “how the pretrial delay prevented him from presenting evidence that could have supported his defense, and otherwise hampered his ability to adequately prepare or present his defense.” Also, based on a review of the record, it did “not appear probable that the use of interactive video technology to voir dire most of the jury affected the outcome of the trial or otherwise resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” The court concluded “that James, despite identifying an irregularity in the voir dire procedure,” did not rebut the presumptions that jurors follow their instructions and are impartial. The court further held that “the trial court did not plainly err” in instructing the jury on the elements of first-degree home invasion. But it “violated Beck when it stated that it found that James committed aggravated assault and used that finding as a basis for assessing OV 3 at 10 points.”