Ineffective assistance of counsel; Effect of a silent record; Presumption that counsel rendered effective assistance; Strickland v Washington; Prejudice; People v Douglas; Sufficiency of the evidence for an aggravated domestic violence conviction; MCL 750.81a(2); People v Cameron; People v Corbiere; Voluntariness of jury trial waiver; People v Lafey; People v Cook; MCR 6.402(B)

The court rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and held that there was sufficient evidence to support his aggravated domestic violence conviction. It also concluded that he did not overcome the presumption that his jury trial waiver was knowing and voluntary. He first contended that his attorney (M) was ineffective for “failing to pursue a plea agreement and by inadequately advising him about the consequences of a felony conviction.” But the court found that he failed to show deficient performance or prejudice. The record was silent as to the substance of M’s “discussions with the prosecutor. The absence of a later plea offer does not establish that counsel failed to negotiate, particularly where [M] and the prosecutor jointly indicated that they needed more time to discuss the case after [M] was appointed.” The record also did not provide any support for the assertion that M “inadequately advised him about the consequences of a felony conviction.” The court noted that a silent record cannot overcome the strong presumption that counsel rendered effective assistance. As to prejudice, he did not show “a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a renewed plea offer or that the prosecutor would have renewed the earlier offer.” He next challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction. He admitted that he and the victim (YZ) “argued, that he stood from the couch while telling YZ to get away from him, and that he grabbed both of her arms above the elbows.” While he asserted that he only grabbed her because she seemed faint, the “trial court was not required to accept defendant’s explanation” and other evidence reinforced the inference that the contact “was not merely an attempt to steady her.” The court concluded that “a rational fact-finder could infer that defendant intentionally grabbed YZ in a harmful or offensive manner during the argument and that his conduct caused her fractured humerus.” Finally, as to his jury waiver, the record showed “that defendant understood his choice and voluntarily selected a bench trial.” Affirmed.