Ineffective assistance of trial counsel; Failure to adequately explain the plea & sentencing agreements; Failure to notify defendant that a witness would not be testifying on his behalf; Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA)

Finding no errors warranting reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s CSC III and IV convictions and sentences. According to defendant, his trial counsel (S) “failed to adequately explain to defendant the plea agreement and sentencing agreement offered to him, which he would have accepted had” S done so. First, he argued that S “failed to inform defendant of the proper consequences of proceeding to trial.” Similarly, he contended that S “was deficient by failing to inform defendant of the benefits of accepting the trial court’s Cobbs agreement.” The court was unpersuaded because the record showed “that defendant was presented with information regarding the circumstances of his sentencing. [S] testified that he explained to defendant his sentencing guidelines and read to him the offer and sentencing guidelines sent by the prosecutor.” S’s secretary also testified that S “relayed the information from the e-mail to defendant. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err when it found that [S] adequately informed defendant of his potential sentencing consequences.” Defendant also argued that S “failed to inform [him] that [W] would not be testifying on defendant’s behalf.” However, S “testified that it was actually defendant’s desire to not have [W] testify at trial because [W] ‘was turning his back on [defendant,]’ and ‘didn’t want anything to do with’ defendant’s case, so ‘[defendant] believed that [W] would not be a good witness.’” Thus, the trial court also did not clearly err when it found that S did not fail to inform defendant that W would not be testifying on his behalf. Next, he argued that S “failed to inform defendant that the plea agreement allowed [him] to plead guilty to only one count of” CSC III. S “testified that he read defendant’s plea offer in full to defendant; thus, defendant knew that the prosecutor was willing to offer defendant a plea to one count of" CSC III. S "also testified that at no point did he tell defendant that, if he went to trial, defendant could not be sentenced to more than two years in prison.” Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err when it found that S “informed defendant of the sentencing agreement and that he could be sentenced to more than two years.” And lastly, defendant argued that S “failed to inquire about a no-contest plea with the prosecutor or negotiate for a” HYTA disposition. This argument was “not persuasive, as the prosecutor testified she would not have agreed to such a plea.” Moreover, S “testified that he would have been willing to pursue a no contest plea for defendant, but defendant was always insistent on going to trial and proving his innocence.”