Ineffective assistance of counsel; Advice about a plea offer; Lafler v Cooper; People v White; Cruel or unusual punishment; Imposition of lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM); Unreasonable search; People v Hallak; Lifetime sex offender registration; People v Kardasz; Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA)

The court held that defendant failed to show either deficient performance or prejudice as to his claim that defense counsel did not provide sufficient advice about a plea offer. It also rejected his arguments that the imposition of LEM and lifetime sex offender registration are cruel or unusual punishment and that LEM constitutes an unconstitutional search. Thus, it affirmed his CSC I and II convictions, and his sentences, including mandatory LEM and SORA registration. As to his ineffective assistance claim, at “the Ginther hearing, defense counsel testified that he communicated the seven-year offer to defendant, advised him to ‘sleep on it,’ and emphasized the significant disparity between the offer and the potential 25-year mandatory minimum sentence that would be imposed if defendant were convicted. Defense counsel further testified that his approach was to have defendant weigh the risks of trial against the benefits of the plea, particularly with respect to sentencing exposure.” The record showed “that defendant was aware of the mandatory minimum sentence” related to the CSC I charge, which was “explained at arraignment and discussed during the proceedings. Ultimately, defense counsel communicated the plea offer, discussed the potential sentencing consequences, and advised defendant to seriously consider the offer. That advice was sufficient to allow defendant to make an informed decision.” As to prejudice, there was substantial record “evidence that defendant consistently maintained his innocence and was unwilling to accept a plea.” Both he and defense counsel testified at the Ginther hearing that “defendant maintained this position throughout the proceedings.” Under such circumstances, “it is generally not reasonably probable that the defendant would have accepted a plea offer.” As to the unreasonable search claim related to LEM, the court held in Hallak that while “LEM is a search, it is not unreasonable as applied to a defendant convicted of” CSC II against a minor. Hallak is binding precedent that foreclosed his constitutional challenges. Finally, to the extent he raised a facial constitutional challenge to SORA lifetime registration, it failed under Kardasz. And under that case’s framework, he did not establish that the requirements were “unconstitutional as applied to him.”