Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to introduce the victim’s search history; Failure to introduce additional medical records & doctor testimony; Failure to introduce the victim’s recantation; Failure to interview defendant’s daughter; Failure to object to the prosecution’s late addition of a witness; Failure to object to the prosecution’s line of questioning in cross-examining defendant; Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of accosting a child for immoral purposes & CSC I; Credibility

Holding that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and there was sufficient evidence to support his accosting a child for immoral purposes and CSC I convictions, the court affirmed. Defendant argued, among other things, that “counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not introduce evidence that the victim searched ‘adult pornography sites [for] sexual encounters like ‘step-daddy’ sex and/or ‘stepbrother’ pornography.’” The court found that rather “than substantively addressing the trial court’s reasoning, defendant merely reiterates his belief that it was unreasonable for counsel to not admit the victim’s search history as evidence.” The court concluded “that counsel’s decision to not admit evidence of the victim’s search history was reasonable trial strategy. Accordingly, for the reasons explained by the trial court, we reject this claim of ineffective assistance.” Next, defendant argued his trial counsel was ineffective “because he failed to introduce additional medical records and doctor testimony documenting defendant’s erectile dysfunction.” But he failed “to meaningfully explain why the trial court erred by rejecting this claim of ineffective assistance.” He simply asserted, “without any citation, that if a defense is based on a medical diagnosis, defense counsel ‘CANNOT simply accept documents from a client without seeking all of the relevant documents from the medical provider(s) directly.’ Obviously, no such blanket rule exists; counsel is only required to conduct a reasonable investigation.” The court concluded “that defense counsel’s performance in this respect was objectively reasonable; defense counsel adequately investigated defendant’s medical condition and presented to the jury both medical records confirming defendant’s medical condition and testimony from multiple witnesses confirming” it. The court further noted “that even if defense counsel should have investigated this matter further, defendant has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by that failure. Defendant has not provided an offer of proof of what the additional medical records would have shown or what the content of the unidentified doctors’ testimonies would have been. Without such evidence we have no way of determining whether defense counsel’s alleged failure to present the evidence would have prejudiced defendant. In other words, this ineffective-assistance claim must fail because defendant has failed to establish the factual predicate of his claim.”