Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Failure to make a futile objection; Admission of defendant’s other acts of domestic violence or sexual assault in cases involving domestic violence or sexual assault; MCL 768.27b; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Propp; Sentencing; Proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; MCL 769.34(10); People v Armisted; Right to allocution; MCR 6.425(D)(1)(c); Alleged violation of Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(12) (interruptions); Distinguishing People v Dixon-Bey; Resentencing before a different judge

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that there were no errors in sentencing. He was convicted of CSC I with a weapon, kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence, third offense, and felony-firearm, arising out of the kidnapping and sexual assault of his ex-girlfriend. The trial court sentenced him to 570 to 960 months for CSC I and kidnapping, 120 to 180 for assault with a dangerous weapon, 180 to 960 for domestic violence, and 24 for each felony-firearm. He argued that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to exclude the testimony of his ex-wife and a detective (J), and by failing to inform the trial court that defendant did not kidnap his daughter and that his conviction that arose out of that prior incident was already accounted for under the guidelines. But because his “ex-wife’s testimony was admissible under MCL 768.27b,” defense counsel was not ineffective in not moving to exclude it. At trial, J “testified about his response to the initial police report and the success at locating defendant and his daughter. Defendant has not argued how this testimony should have been excluded under MCL 768.27b or MRE 403.” Further, although defense counsel “did not specifically argue that the sentencing guidelines already accounted for this conduct, the record reveals that the trial court understood that” they did so. As to his claim the trial court gave undue weight to other acts evidence when it sentenced him within the recommended guidelines range, he did “not assert any error in scoring or that the trial court based his sentences on inaccurate information.” His within-guidelines sentence was presumptively proportionate. And the record showed “the trial court properly considered the seriousness of the offenses for which the jury found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and appropriately considered [his] lengthy criminal history of domestic violence and kidnapping and properly justified the sentences it imposed.” It also rejected his contention that the trial court violated Canon 3(A)(12) by interrupting defense counsel while arguing for a lower sentence and depriving him of his right to allocution. “The record in this case indicates that the trial court did not offer defendant an illusory or superficial opportunity for allocution. The trial court gave [him] the opportunity to exercise his right to allocution.” Finally, the court noted that because defendant was “not entitled to resentencing, he is also not entitled to resentencing before a new judge.” Affirmed.