Unqualified juror; MCL 600.1307a(1)(d) (served in the last 12 months); MCR 2.511(D) & (E); MCL 600.1354(1); Whether an error was structural; People v Miller; Plain error review; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to present a photo; Relevance; Intent; Failure to request a mitigating-circumstances instruction (M Crim JI 17.4) as to AWIGBH & a mistake of fact instruction as to first-degree home invasion; Cumulative error; Sentencing; Refusal to admit guilt; People v Pennington; Proportionality; People v Lampe; Within-guidelines presumption

The court concluded that while there was a clear, obvious error, defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the basis that one or more of her jurors were unqualified due to having served as a juror in the last 12 months. It rejected her ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and held that she was not entitled to resentencing. Her sentence was not impermissibly based on the fact she maintained her innocence at sentencing and was proportionate. She was convicted of first-degree home invasion, AWIGBH, and aggravated domestic violence. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of 54 months to 20 years, 54 months to 10 years, and 12 months, respectively. As to her claim she was entitled to a new trial due to one or more unqualified jurors, based on Miller the court rejected her argument that this was a structural error. Applying plain-error analysis, it found the record showed “the trial court was aware that several jurors selected for defendant’s trial were also selected to serve on other juries, and the documentation submitted by defendant” showed that this was so. The trial “court’s jury-selection system appears to all but guarantee the seating of unqualified jurors, and the [trial] court knew or should have known that several of defendant’s jurors were unqualified.” Thus, the court concluded “that this was a clear, obvious error.” But defendant did not “overcome the presumption that her jurors were impartial, i.e., that the plain error affected substantial rights.” She simply offered “speculation that recent jury service might have affected the jurors’ attitudes regarding the criminal justice system or that inexperienced jurors might have deferred to experienced jurors during deliberations.” The court also rejected her claims that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) present a photo and (2) request M Crim JI 17.4 as to AWIGBH and a mistake of fact instruction as to first-degree home invasion. It also rejected her ineffective assistance cumulative error claim. As to her sentencing, the court found that she did not “overcome the presumption that her within-guidelines sentence was proportionate.” Affirmed.