Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Failure to make a futile objection; Prejudice; Cumulative error; Judicial bias; MCR 2.003(C)(1); People v Loew; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v Orlewicz; Appeals to sympathy; Denigration of defense counsel; Due process; Retrial after a mistrial; People v Thompson; People v Sierb; Sentencing; Mandatory life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a 20-year-old; MCL 769.25; People v Taylor

The court held that: (1) defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, (2) the judge was not biased, (3) the prosecution did not engage in misconduct, and (4) there was no due process violation in retrying him. Thus, it affirmed defendant’s convictions. However, because he was 20 years old at the time of the offense and the trial court imposed a mandatory LWOP sentence, it vacated his first-degree felony murder sentence and remanded for resentencing under Taylor. “On remand, due process does not require that a different trial judge be assigned.” He was also convicted of felony-firearm, carrying with unlawful intent, and CCW arising from the 2018 shooting of the victim. The court found defense counsel was not ineffective, finding that electing not to call the defense DNA expert again, after her prior testimony conceded “‘the prosecution could be right,’” was reasonable strategy. In addition, the detective’s “opinion that one person was using the phone during the time period examined was based on his expert analysis of the phone records rather than any unscientific personal views.” Thus, any objection would have been futile. Further, allowing headings on non-admitted PowerPoint slides to display a phone number next to defendant’s name was error but not prejudicial given other evidence and limiting instructions. The court next found that defendant failed “to explain how the trial judge’s comments indicate bias or otherwise require disqualification.” As to prosecutorial misconduct, playing graphic body-cam footage showing life-saving efforts was permissible, and brief sympathy remarks about the victim’s family were improper but harmless and cured by instructions. Further, defendant “failed to establish that the prosecutor impermissibly attacked defense counsel.” His due process claim also failed “in light of Thompson and Sierb, in which our Supreme Court rejected the type of due process claim that defendant is asserting.”