Ineffective assistance of counsel; Opening statement; Failure to expedite defendant’s pro se motion to dismiss; Failure to assist him with an interlocutory appeal; Due process; Ruling on the motion to dismiss; Motion to suppress recording of defendant’s police interview; Right to remain silent; Distinguishing interrogation & other questions or statements by law enforcement; People v. White; Voluntariness of a defendant’s statements; People v Cipriano; Unlawful driving away an automobile (UDAA)

The court rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, found no due process violation, and held that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the recording of his police interview. Thus, it affirmed his AWIM, first-degree home invasion, and UDAA convictions. As to his ineffective assistance claim related to opening statements, the record did not suggest that he “expressly informed defense counsel that he did not approve of the strategy of conceding some guilt at trial.” The court noted that defense “counsel explained that he attempted to mirror defendant’s own statements from the police interview in opening statement and believed that he had accurately done so. Although defendant provided an unsigned, undated, unnotarized alleged affidavit regarding his discussions with defense counsel to his motion for remand, he did not state that he informed defense counsel of his desire to maintain his unqualified innocence at trial.” Further, he “refused to respond or otherwise participate when given an opportunity to proclaim his innocence or explain that defense counsel suppressed his desire to maintain his unqualified innocence at trial.” Thus, the record did not support his “contention that defense counsel overrode his autonomy by disregarding a direction to not admit any criminal conduct at trial.” It also did not support his claim “that defense counsel was ineffective for conceding defendant’s guilt during opening statements.” The court found that he failed to show that defense counsel’s concession that defendant was guilty of AWIGBH while arguing “the prosecution had failed to prove the intent necessary for AWIM” fell below an objective standard of reasonableness given the evidence against defendant. It also rejected his ineffective assistance claims related to his pro se motion to dismiss and failure “to assist him with an interlocutory appeal.” Further, it concluded that he abandoned his due process claim related to his motion to dismiss, and even if it considered the claim, he was given “the opportunity to be heard when [the trial court] took up his motion and he did not respond.” And its denial of the motion “was proper for the reasons it stated on the record.” Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in “finding that the police scrupulously honored his right to remain silent” and he could not show that his police statements “were not voluntary.”