Sufficiency of the evidence; Second-degree home invasion; MCL 750.110a(3); Whether the structure entered was a “dwelling”; Waived issue as to jury instructions on separate counts of resisting or obstructing; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the resisting or obstructing instructions

Concluding that defendant (1) failed to show that there was insufficient evidence for his second-degree home invasion conviction, and (2) did not succeed on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences. He was also convicted of two counts of resisting or obstructing a police officer and making a false or misleading statement. But he only challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to the home invasion conviction. He claimed that the structure he entered was not a dwelling. The court found that “there was sufficient evidence to find that the trailer, located on a residential property, could be considered a dwelling. At trial, the officer testified that defendant was located in a ‘substantially large,’ ‘probably 40 feet, at least,’ camper trailer with a front and rear door and slide-outs that provided even more space inside. The mere fact that the trailer was not occupied at the precise time that defendant entered it does not disqualify the structure as a dwelling; a structure that is used temporarily can still be considered a dwelling under MCL 750.110a(1)(a).” The court concluded that based “on the evidence that the parties introduced, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the trailer was a dwelling, and therefore find sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s second-degree home invasion conviction.” He also argued “that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel allowed the jury instruction on resisting or obstructing.” At his Ginther hearing on his other ineffective-assistance “claims, defendant’s trial counsel explained that he did not object to the instruction because there were three separate incidents of defendant resisting or obstructing: one count for failing to follow the officers’ command to stop while chasing through the field, one count for failing to follow [their] commands to exit the trailer, and one count for failing to show his hands and get on the ground. As defendant’s counsel argued, the three counts were separate and distinct, such that double jeopardy principles were not offended.” The court’s review of the record confirmed “that there were indeed three separate incidents. Accordingly, defense counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s instructions on double jeopardy grounds was not objectively unreasonable.”