First-degree murder; Premeditation & deliberation; People v Plummer; Applicability of MRE 404(b)(1) to defendant’s statements; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Whether defendant experienced a complete denial of counsel; United States v Cronic; Right to a speedy trial; People v Smith; Right to a fair trial; Juror not made an alternate after falling asleep during a prosecution witness’s testimony; People v Dunigan; Brady v Maryland; Failure to disclose impeachment evidence; Prejudice; Newly discovered evidence; People v Cress

The court held that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support defendant’s first-degree murder conviction, and that his prior statements were not prior acts. Further, the facts did not establish that he “experienced a complete denial of counsel such that prejudice should be presumed under Cronic.” The court also found that he was not entitled to a new trial due to denial of his right to a speedy trial or based on newly discovered evidence. In addition, he was not “denied a fair trial because a juror was not made an alternate after she fell asleep during” a prosecution witness’s testimony, and he was not entitled to relief under Brady because the evidence at issue was not material. Thus, the court affirmed his first-degree murder and felony-firearm convictions. The trial evidence showed that the victim (R) was shot in the back, and a witness to the shooting (C) “testified that there was no fight or confrontation between defendant and [R] immediately before the shooting. Although defendant’s Facebook messages did not directly tie him to [R], they showed that defendant was on crutches, he suspected at least that someone from (or with ties to)” an apartment complex (Fox Ridge) “may have some involvement in or knowledge of the shooting in [6/19], and that he planned to kill the person who shot him. That [his] Facebook account was deleted on the day of [R’s] murder and that defendant fled the state is also evidence that [he] was conscious of guilt for his involvement in” the murder. In addition, viewing a video and another witness’s (B) “testimony together, the jury could infer that [B] testified in a manner that would minimize his involvement in the crime, but that defendant paid [B] to drive him to Fox Ridge and that [B] also intended to drive defendant away from Fox Ridge immediately after the shooting.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim “the trial court erred by admitting evidence that he was shot in [6/19], as his statements after the shooting constituted impermissible prior bad-acts evidence.” As to his speedy trial argument, the prosecution overcame “the presumption that defendant’s trial was prejudiced because of the delay in his trial, and the weight of the factors did not justify granting” him a new trial. The court also rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.