Ineffective assistance of counsel; Underestimating the minimum-sentence guidelines; Failure to exclude the body camera video; Failure to request a mistrial; Presentence investigation report (PSIR); Prejudice

Concluding that (1) defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and (2) the trial court failed to make necessary corrections to the PSIR, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting his PSIR. He was convicted of armed robbery, felony-firearm, and CCW. He was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to 126 to 240 months for armed robbery, 2 years for felony-firearm, and 19 to 90 months for the CCW. He claimed that defense counsel was ineffective for “underestimating the minimum-sentence guidelines for the charged offenses, which defendant relied upon to reject the plea offers[.]” The court found that even if it “were to agree with defendant that defense counsel’s scoring mistake was objectively unreasonable, defendant cannot show that there was a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea offer had he been advised of the correct guidelines range.” Defendant failed “to mention on appeal that, at the time the plea offer was made, [he] conditioned his acceptance of the plea offer on the trial court releasing him from custody before sentencing.” The trial court denied his “request, stating that it did not intend to reduce defendant’s bond, especially if the plea was taken. It also warned defendant that if he was convicted at trial, the trial court would not be bound to follow the minimum guideline range and the actual sentence imposed could be longer. Defendant immediately rejected the plea offer, stating he wanted a trial. [His] refusal based on the denial of his request for pretrial release strongly indicates that he would not have accepted the plea offer even if he had known the correct minimum-sentence guideline range.” Thus, his “statements and conduct during plea negotiations belie his claim that he relied on defense counsel’s miscalculation in rejecting the plea offer.” Because he could not establish prejudice, it was “unnecessary for us to determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” Next, he claimed that counsel failed “to exclude the body camera video implicating defendant in an unrelated offense[.]” The court noted that the “body camera video admitted at trial captured an unidentified officer comment that a person involved in an unrelated breaking and entering had a bike similar to defendant’s.” He claimed “that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to seek exclusion of the video.” But he could not “show that but for counsel’s performance, there was ‘a reasonable probability that that outcome would have been different.’” Finally, because he “failed to show that the admission of the video footage was sufficiently prejudicial as to deny him a fair trial,” he could not “establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.”