Sufficiency of the evidence; Fourth-degree fleeing & eluding; MCL 257.602a(2); People v Grayer; Right to counsel; Substitution of counsel; People v McFall; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Preparation for trial; Strickland v Washington; Due process; Sentencing & plea decisions; People v Pennington

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s fourth-degree fleeing-and-eluding conviction and that defendant was not denied his right to counsel or due process. Defendant drove approximately three-quarters of a city block after police activated lights and sirens, then exited his vehicle and ran toward his home while ignoring commands to stop. On appeal, the court held that the evidence was sufficient because the statute does not require speeding or extinguishing lights, and defendant’s conduct, including his actions after exiting the vehicle, supported an inference that he intended to flee and elude police. The court next held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying substitution of counsel where defendant’s generalized claim that “trust has broke down” was insufficient and the record showed counsel was attentive and willing to proceed. It further held that defendant was not denied effective assistance when new counsel was appointed shortly before trial because counsel actively challenged the prosecution’s case and secured acquittals on two charges. The court also held that defendant’s sentence was not improperly influenced by his decision to proceed to trial, noting that the trial court did not threaten a harsher sentence and ultimately imposed a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range. Affirmed.