Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to quash bindover; Witness credibility; Failure to move to dismiss based on a speedy trial violation; Prejudice from delay; Plea advice; Expert witness; Victim identification testimony; Hearsay; Excited utterance; MRE 803(2); Cumulative error; Motion for new trial

The court held that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on any of the asserted grounds and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. He was convicted of AWIM and felony-firearm after two victims were shot while sitting in a vehicle. One victim identified defendant as the shooter while the other did not actually see who fired the shots. On appeal, the court first rejected defendant’s claim that counsel should have sought to quash the bindover. The preliminary-exam testimony “constitutes ‘enough evidence to cause a person of ordinary caution and prudence to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the defendant’s guilt,’” making a motion to quash futile. Counsel also was not ineffective for failing to assert defendant’s speedy-trial right despite an approximately 58-month delay. Much of it “was the result of pandemic restrictions or adjournments either requested, or agreed to, by defense counsel,” and defendant failed to establish prejudice to his defense. His plea-advice claim likewise failed because “the record belies defendant’s assertion that had he been fully informed, he would have accepted the plea.” At sentencing, he stated he rejected the four-year offer because he could not accept responsibility for something he maintained he did not do. As to counsel’s decision not to offer a private investigator as an expert, defendant “failed to overcome the presumption that this decision constituted sound trial strategy” and did not establish that the witness could qualify or what admissible expert testimony he would provide. Counsel’s handling of one victim’s identification testimony also “amounted to sound trial strategy because it supported defendant’s argument that the evidence of his identification as the shooter was flawed and not credible.” Finally, even assuming deficient handling of the hearsay objection to a victim’s excited statement identifying defendant, “he cannot establish that he suffered prejudice as a result.” Having established no ineffective assistance, his cumulative-error claim necessarily failed. Affirmed.