Sentencing; Hearing under Miller v Alabama; 19-year-old offender; People v Taylor; Request for reassignment to a different judge on resentencing; People v Walker; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request jury instructions on a lesser included offense, mere presence, & specific unanimity; Failure to request a separate trial or jury; Failure to call an alibi witness; Trial strategy; Failure to hire an expert

The court rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and affirmed his convictions. But as he was 19 years old at the time of the crimes, it vacated his felony-murder sentence and remanded for resentencing. It denied his request for reassignment on remand. After a cold-case investigation, he was convicted of felony-murder, armed robbery, and first-degree home invasion for crimes committed in 2011. He argued, and the prosecution agreed, that because he was 19 years old at the time of the crime, he was entitled to a hearing under Miller so “that attributes of youth can be taken into account at his sentencing for felony-murder.” As to his request for reassignment of his case to a different judge, the court considered the Walker factors and determined that reassignment was “not in order. It was not ‘erroneous’ or faulty for the trial court to indicate that” defendant and his codefendant (T) “acted cowardly and had intimidated witnesses.” There also was no “indication that the trial court would not comply with new caselaw mandating that attributes of youth be taken into account when resentencing defendant—indeed, [it] acknowledged it would do so during the sentencing hearing if the law changed to cover 19-year-olds. The trial was lengthy, and the time it would take for a new judge to become familiar with the proceedings would be substantial.” Next, defendant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request lesser included offense, mere presence, and specific unanimity jury instructions. The court disagreed, concluding (1) a rational view of the evidence did not support a finding that defendant and T murdered the victim “without committing a robbery or home invasion[,]” (2) counsel pursued a strategy to create reasonable doubt about whether defendant was actually present at the crime scene, and (3) “even if a specific unanimity instruction was required,” he could not show prejudice. The court also found that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a separate trial or jury, call defendant’s mother as an alibi witness, or hire an expert witness.