Substitution of appointed counsel; Good cause; People v Buie (On Remand); Admission of preliminary exam testimony; MRE 804(b)(1); People v Adams; Confrontation Clause opportunity to cross-examine; United States v Owens

Holding that the trial court did not err in denying substitution of counsel one week before trial, properly admitted the complainant’s preliminary exam testimony, and that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance in plea discussions, the court affirmed. He was convicted of armed robbery, FIP, and felony-firearm. Defendant’s third appointed attorney reported a claimed breakdown on the eve of trial and the trial court responded, “The Court is not giving him another attorney.” Trial proceeded and counsel actively litigated motions, examined witnesses, and argued to the jury. As to the hearsay and confrontation issues, the complainant appeared but refused to testify, the trial court found unavailability and admitted the preliminary examination testimony under MRE 804. The court emphasized that the Confrontation Clause “guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” As to ineffective assistance tied to rejected plea offers, the court found the record lacked proof that counsel misadvised defendant about intoxication or dismissal if the witness did not testify, noting that defendant’s own sentencing statement showed only that he “believed” certain defenses would be raised and that his lawyer in fact moved to dismiss “at defendant’s insistence,” which undercut his claim.