Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to investigate & present a witness; Matters of trial strategy; Claim of self-defense; Failure to move to sever trials; MCR 6.121(D); Motion for a mistrial; Admission of photographic evidence; Relevance; Unfair prejudice; Redaction of a 911 call; Effect of the trial court’s jury instructions; Testimony about a prior shooting; Sentencing; Cruel or unusual punishment; Mandatory life in prison sentence for a first-degree murder committed when defendant was 19; People v Parks; People v Hall; People v Czarnecki (On Remand; On Reconsideration)

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court did not err in denying his motion for a mistrial. It also rejected his claim that his mandatory life sentence for his first-degree murder convictions was cruel or unusual given that he was 19 years old when he committed the crimes. He was also convicted of felony-firearm. He argued that “defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a witness” (H) who defendant asserted “could have supported a self-defense claim and for failing to move to sever his trial from” that of his codefendant (Davenport). The court concluded that H’s “statement could not have supported a viable claim of self-defense.” Among other things, it found that defendant “completely mischaracterized” H’s statement and that H’s “testimony would have likely bolstered the prosecution’s theory that defendant was shot in the leg by friendly fire while both defendants were shooting at the victims. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that defendant’s DNA was found on one murder weapon, that Davenport’s DNA was found on the other murder weapon, that [victim-]Davis suffered multiple gunshot wounds, and that Davis was shot by ‘[t]wo different weapons, two different pieces of ammunition[.]’” The court added that, even assuming “defendant characterized [H’s] statement with total accuracy, he has failed on appeal to put forth a cogent claim of self-defense.” He also could not “establish ineffective assistance stemming from defense counsel’s decision not to seek severance of the trial.” As to his motion for a mistrial, the court found no error in the admission of crime scene photos in which a child’s car seat was visible. It knew “of no authority suggesting that courts must take caution to avoid apprising the jury of a crime victim’s familial relations. Further, defendant” did not dispute that the photos were used to show bullet trajectory, and the trial “court was justifiably concerned that blacking out the image of the car seat would only cause confusion.” The court also determined that the “prosecutor’s handling of the redaction of the 911 call did not suggest that counsel was intentionally attempting to mislead the jury but fairly handled the redaction of evidence to be presented during trial.” As to his sentencing, the court “considered and rejected his same constitutional argument in Czarnecki.” Affirmed.