Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Carbin; People v. Seals; People v. Hoag; Padilla v. Kentucky; Strickland v. Washington; Trial strategy; People v. Russell; A substantial defense; Harrington v. Richter; Failure to seek public funds to hire an expert witness; MCL 775.15; People v. Ackley; People v. Kennedy; People v. Carnicom; Failure to advance a novel legal argument; People v. Reed; Shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma; Sissoko v. State (MD App.); Cavazos v. Smith; Indigent status; MCR 6.005(B); People v. Arquette

Holding that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed his conviction of first-degree child abuse, and his sentence of 2 to 15 years. His conviction arose out of head injuries sustained by his girlfriend’s child. He claimed the injuries were the result of a fall during his absence from the room. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The federal district court eventually denied his motion for habeas relief, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, directing the district court that if it found prejudice it must conditionally grant the writ of habeas corpus. On remand, the district court directed the court to grant another appeal. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to seek public funds to hire an expert witness, or alternatively, by failing to seek the assistance of an expert who would have provided services pro bono. It found this case “distinguishable from Ackley, where the defendant’s counsel did nothing to investigate the availability of a suitable expert and utterly failed to inform himself of the critical issues to enable putting forth a defense.” In Ackley, “counsel’s ineptitude deprived the defendant of a defense.” However, “such deficiencies are not present in this case. The record reflects that [counsel] acted prudently under the circumstances, developed a sound trial strategy, and presented a strong defense for defendant.” Further, “even a successful motion for expert funds likely would have provided defendant no guaranty of the ability to pay for” the expert’s trial testimony. As such, even if it were to find that counsel’s “conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” the court was “not convinced that, but for such purported deficient conduct, the outcome would have been different.”