Ineffective assistance; Plea negotiations; People v Douglas; Remand for evidentiary hearing; MCR 7.211(C)(1)(a); People v Chapo; Sentencing proportionality; People v Steanhouse; Within-guidelines presumption of reasonableness; People v Posey (On Remand)

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief on her ineffective-assistance claim and that her within-guidelines sentence was proportionate. Defendant was convicted of AWIM, AWIGBH, FIP, and felony-firearm, and she was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 35 to 60 years for the AWIM conviction with lesser terms for the others. On appeal, the court held that the ineffective-assistance claim failed because the asserted eight-year minimum plea offer was not actually extended by the prosecution, noting it was “clear that no offer was actually made” and that trial counsel could not be ineffective “in relation to a plea deal that was never made.” It also found no record support for the contention that counsel told defendant the case was “in the bag.” It emphasized that defendant was advised on the record of the consequences of rejecting the actual offers and still chose trial, and that appellate review was “‘limited to mistakes that are apparent on the record.’” The court further ruled that a remand for an evidentiary hearing was unwarranted because “further factual development would not advance” the claim. It next found the sentence reasonable under the proportionality framework, reiterating that the “‘principle of proportionality requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’” It concluded the trial court properly considered deterrence, rehabilitation, punishment, defendant’s criminal history, and the “egregious” nature of shooting the victim during a neighborhood dispute. Affirmed.