Ineffective assistance of counsel; Search & seizure; Fourth Amendment; Standing; Minnesota v Carter; People v Mahdi; Police-witness impeachment; People v Trakhtenberg; Felon-in-possession; MCL 750.224f; Felony-firearm; MCL 750.227b; Constructive possession; People v Johnson; Speedy trial; Barker v Wingo; Prosecutorial error; Constitutionality of MCL 750.224f; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen; People v Hughes

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief from his FIP and felony-firearm convictions based on ineffective assistance, insufficient evidence, speedy-trial delay, prosecutorial error, or his constitutional challenge to MCL 750.224f. He was arrested in a bedroom where officers found a handgun under a mattress, and DNA testing strongly supported him as a contributor to DNA on the gun. The court first held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to relitigate suppression because defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. It reasoned that “nothing in the record establishes that defendant was anything more than a mere visitor” and he failed to show “a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bedroom.” The court next held that counsel should have impeached a deputy with prior false-statement evidence because the failure “cannot be considered sound or strategic,” but defendant failed to show prejudice because another officer gave similar testimony and the DNA evidence remained strong. The court also rejected defendant’s incomplete-defense and competency claims because his witness theory was “only speculating,” and counsel testified defendant was “responsive and able to provide input regarding his defense.” The court next held that sufficient evidence supported possession because the DNA evidence made defendant “approximately 6.27 sextillion times more likely” to be a contributor, permitting a jury to infer he placed the gun under the mattress. The court rejected the speedy-trial claim because “most of the delay” arose from defense counsel’s withdrawal and competency proceedings, and defendant was already incarcerated on another case. It also found no prosecutorial error because the prosecutor’s theory was a reasonable inference from proximity and DNA, and rejected the Bruen challenge because Hughes held that MCL 750.224f is “consistent with the Nation’s historical precedent of regulating firearm possession by persons convicted of felonies[.]” Affirmed.