Right to counsel; Substitute counsel; People v Buie; Self-representation; MCL 763.1; People v Anderson; Venue; MCL 762.3(2); People v White; Unavailable witness; MRE 804; People v Garland; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; People v Fomby; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Miller v Alabama hearing; Juvenile life without parole (LWOP); MCL 769.25; People v Parks

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief on his conviction-related claims, but that his sentences had to be vacated because counsel was ineffective at the Miller hearing. He was convicted of felony murder and felony-firearm for a 1983 murder committed when he was 18 years old. The trial court imposed LWOP after a Miller hearing. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying counsel’s motion to withdraw because defendant’s complaints were “primarily of name-calling and generalized attacks,” counsel was prepared for trial, and a defendant may not create a breakdown by refusing to cooperate and then demand new counsel. The court next held that defendant did not unequivocally invoke self-representation because his statements were conditional, ambiguous, or focused on getting “a real lawyer.” The court also upheld venue in Newaygo County because the victim’s body was never found, evidence pointed to both Newaygo and Kent Counties, and there was no “conclusive evidence concerning the location” of the murder. The court further held that the unavailable-witness ruling was proper because the retired detective’s condition prevented him from testifying, and prior testimony satisfied confrontation requirements because counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine him. As to opinion testimony, the detective’s challenged statements explained the investigation and did not directly state that defendant was guilty. But the court held that trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing because the mitigation expert was “plainly unprepared,” offered only “rudimentary facts,” and had not reviewed essential records. Because a proper mitigation presentation could have called into question the trial court’s view that defendant had an idyllic childhood and little mitigation, defendant showed a reasonable probability of a different sentencing outcome. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new Miller hearing and for resentencing.