Sufficiency of the evidence; Third-degree fleeing & eluding (MCL 257.602a(3)(b)); Whether the initial stop was unlawful; Traffic violation; Parking in an area with a no-parking sign; Intent to flee; Assaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer (MCL 750.81d(1)); Claim that the resistance was a lawful response to excessive force; Graham v Connor; Inapplicability of People v Moreno; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request jury instructions on the lawfulness of the officer’s conduct; Failure to move for a directed verdict; Failure to object to prosecutor comments; Prosecutorial error; People v Unger

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of third-degree fleeing and eluding and assaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer. It rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and while “some of the prosecutor’s remarks went beyond what was directly relevant” it concluded defendant was not denied a fair trial. The court first found that his assertion he was not committing any traffic violations was incorrect – both the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC) and a local ordinance “prohibit parking in an area with a no-parking sign.” While he contended his vehicle not “parked,” only “standing” or “stopping[,]” he failed to acknowledge that the MVC and the ordinances “define ‘parking’ as ‘standing a vehicle, whether occupied or not, upon a highway, when not loading or unloading except when making necessary repairs.’” And an officer’s body-camera “footage clearly showed that defendant’s vehicle was stopped and standing in a street with a no-parking sign[,]” supporting a determination, “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer had a legal basis to issue a traffic citation under both MCL 257.674(1)(n) and” the ordinance. Further, “ample evidence” supported the fleeing element. The officer told him twice to wait and that he was not free to leave. Yet defendant tried “to drive away, stopping only because the officer stood in front of his vehicle and told him to stop. Arguably, that action alone justified the fleeing element[.]” As to his resisting conviction, he asserted an excessive amount of force was used against him. The court reviewed the Graham factors. As to the severity of the crime, defendant escalated a minor parking infraction by trying “to drive away despite being told not to. By doing so, [he] satisfied the elements of third-degree fleeing and eluding,” a felony, and justified the use of force – grabbing him by the arm. He then “again escalated the situation by struggling with the officer. By doing so, [he] satisfied the elements of assaulting, resisting, or obstructing,” another felony. This justified taking him “down to the pavement and handcuffing him.” As to the threat he posed, his “actions demonstrated some threat potential.” The court determined that the facts and circumstances here did “not indicate that the amount of force used was unreasonable.” Thus, his “resistance was not a lawful response to excessive force.” Affirmed.