Sufficiency of the evidence; Carjacking; Intent to permanently deprive; Ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea-taking stage; Overestimating chances at trial; Failure to provide relevant discovery

Holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the bench trial verdict convicting defendant of carjacking and that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed. It held that “gas station surveillance video and the victim’s testimony established that defendant initially approached the victim at the gas station just as the victim ‘unlocked [her] door and got ready to open it, [defendant] came up to [the victim] with the gun to [her] head and told [her], b***h, you know what it is, get in the car.’ The victim immediately panicked, and followed [his] commands to enter the car and ‘scoot over’ to the passenger seat, while [he] continued to point the gun at” her. He asked a friend who was present “to ‘get in the car,’ but the friend refused. Defendant continuously used the victim’s car, whether he was driving the vehicle himself or forcing [her] to drive the car on his behalf, to visit his sister’s residence, a local restaurant, the home of the victim’s ‘baby daddy,’ and the victim’s apartment.” He also obtained her driver’s license and cell phone, “and repeatedly threatened the victim by asserting ‘he’s got to get [her] baby daddy because [her] baby daddy supposedly took some money from him, and [she] had to help him, and if [she] didn’t help him he was going to kill [her].’” Further, Detective W “testified that defendant admitted, during their interview, that he had taken a photograph of the victim’s license for himself. As the trial court opined,” he kept control of the vehicle, the victim’s freedom, and the keys under the threat to her “of being shot or killed[.]” Regardless of whether he “predicated the return of the victim’s car on the repayment of the debt of her child’s father, or defendant intended to retain the vehicle without the purpose of returning it within a reasonable time, it is clear that [he] intended to permanently deprive the victim of her vehicle . . . .” The court noted that the only reason he “was unable to maintain possession over the victim’s car is because he was subsequently arrested at the victim’s apartment building after the local police department successfully contacted [her]. Whether the underlying offense was a completed larceny, or an attempted larceny, is irrelevant for purposes of the carjacking statute, and defendant’s conduct demonstrated that he intended to permanently deprive the victim of her vehicle, and potentially her life, and kept her hostage doing so. Moreover, the victim testified that [he] withheld her driver’s license, apartment keys, and car keys throughout the two-day incident, and” she did not try to escape because he continuously threatened her. The court concluded that in “light of the record, a rational trier of fact could have reasonably inferred and found that defendant had the intent to steal or permanently deprive the victim of her vehicle.”