Sanity; MCL 768.21a; Mental illness defined; MCL 330.1400(g); Insanity as an affirmative defense; People v. Mette; People v. Kolanek; Credibility determinations; People v. Kanaan; Sufficiency of the evidence of intent for assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM); People v. Brown; Adequacy of the trial court’s factual findings in a bench trial; MCR 6.403; People v. Legg; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Sabin (On Second Remand); Factual predicate; People v. Putman; Whether remand for an evidentiary hearing was warranted; People v. McMillan; Denial of request for substitution of counsel; People v. Traylor; People v. Buie (On Remand); People v. Ginther; Good cause; People v. McFall; Sentencing; Fourth-habitual offender enhancement; MCL 769.12; Failure to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 769.13; In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond; Applicability of the harmless-error analysis; People v. Cobley; Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH); The drug Lean (a mixture of cough syrup containing promethazine with codeine)

The court held that the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling in defendant’s bench trial that he failed to prove his insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and that there was sufficient evidence of his intent to support his AWIM convictions. Further, the trial court’s factual findings were adequate. The court also rejected his claims that counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the trial court erred in denying his request for substitution of appointed counsel. However, he was entitled to resentencing without the fourth-habitual offender enhancement because the prosecution did not file the mandatory notice. He was originally found guilty but mentally ill of AWIM, AWIGBH, and felonious assault. The trial court vacated the AWIGBH convictions, and sentenced him as fourth-offense habitual offender to 450 to 720 months for the AWIM convictions and 60 to 180 months for felonious assault. The court concluded that he “met his initial burden to set forth evidence of his insanity by introducing the expert opinion of” a doctor (W) that he “was unable to understand what he was doing and unable to control himself when he was under the delusion that his daughter had been transformed into a raccoon.” However, providing this evidence “did not shift the burden to the prosecutor. Rather, the question of defendant’s sanity was for the trial court, sitting as factfinder, to decide.” It considered W’s opinion and the contrary opinion of another doctor (G), and credited G’s testimony over that of W. The court will not interfere with a factfinder’s credibility assessments. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that his “voluntary intoxication was the sole reason for his behavior.” A rational factfinder could find that his use of the drug Lean, rather than his long-term mental illness, caused his “hallucinations and violent outburst.” The prosecution conceded that it did not file the habitual offender enhancement notice required by MCL 769.13, and the court rejected its argument that the error was harmless, noting that the harmless-error analysis did not apply. Thus, his convictions were affirmed but his sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing.