Sufficiency of the evidence; Aiding or abetting; AWIGBH & armed robbery; Double jeopardy; Inconsistent verdicts; People v McKewen; Prosecutorial error; Vouching for the victim’s credibility; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection; Sentencing; Proportionality; Effect of within-guidelines sentences

The court held that there was sufficient evidence for “the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant aided and abetted in the underlying crimes of AWIGBH and armed robbery.” Also, his AWIGBH and felonious assault convictions did not violate double jeopardy. As to his inconsistent verdicts claim, the “Supreme Court held in McKewen that a guilty verdict for felonious assault was not mutually exclusive to a guilty verdict for AWIGBH and upheld” that defendant’s convictions. He failed to show plain error as to his prosecutorial error claim and because no error occurred, his trial counsel was not “ineffective for failing to raise a futile objection.” Finally, his sentence was proportionate. He was convicted of AWIGBH, armed robbery, felonious assault, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to 18 to 120 months for AWIGBH, 8 to 15 years for armed robbery, 1 to 4 years for felonious assault, and 2 years for each felony-firearm conviction. Defendant contended, among other things, “there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, demonstrating: (a) he was aware of [codefendant-]Dew’s plan to rob and shoot the victim, (b) he intended to assist Dew in robbing and shooting the victim, or (c) he assaulted the victim intending to do great bodily harm.” The court found his claim was not persuasive. “Defendant’s challenges, including what inferences could be drawn from the evidence, are related to the weight and credibility of the evidence, which were issues for the jury to resolve.” The court noted that the “jury was free to accept or reject the theory of either party in light of the evidence presented at trial, and we will not interfere with the jury’s role of determining issues of weight and credibility.” Further, it noted that it was “required to resolve all conflicts in the evidence—whether direct or circumstantial—in favor of the prosecution[.]” It held that applying “these standards, there was sufficient evidence to” support defendant’s AWIGBH and armed robbery convictions on an aiding and abetting theory. Affirmed.