Sufficiency of the evidence; Conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder; MCL 750.157a; First-degree murder; People v Bennett; Premeditation & deliberation; People v Orr; Inferring an intent to kill from the use of a dangerous weapon; People v DeLisle; Due process; People v McGee; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Lane; Failure to request a bill of particulars; MCR 6.112(E); People v Harbour; Trial strategy; People v Trakhtenberg; Failure to raise a futile objection; Prejudice; People v Randolph; Jury instruction error; People v Kowalski; Right to a unanimous jury verdict; MCR 6.410(B); People v Chelmicki; Sentencing; Life without parole (LWOP); People v Jahner; Cruel & unusual punishment; People v Fernandez

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction, that he was not denied due process or the effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury or in sentencing. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to LWOP. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because there was no conspiracy to kill the person who was actually killed during the incident. “[T]here is no requirement to prove a conspiracy to kill a person who was actually killed.” And contrary to defendant’s assertion, “the identity of the person who was the intended target of the conspiracy is not an element of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.” The court also rejected his claim that he was denied his right to due process because he was not given notice of whom he allegedly conspired to murder. Again, “the identity of the person who was the target of the conspiracy is not an element of conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder. In any event, the felony information also charged defendant and his codefendant each with three counts of” AWIM. Three other victims “were identified in the felony information as the respective victims of the three assaults with intent to commit murder. Defendant was thus provided notice that he was being charged in connection with efforts to kill” them. The court next rejected his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not request a bill of particulars, noting he failed “to address this point or to explain why the preliminary examination would not have provided adequate notice of the nature of the charges against him.” It further rejected his argument that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the conspiracy charge because the jury was never instructed that the identity of the person who was the intended target of the conspiracy was an element of the offense, noting he waived this argument. Moreover, counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument or raise a futile objection to the instructions. And because a specific unanimity instruction was not required, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile request. Finally, the court rejected his claims that the trial court lacked authority to sentence him to LWOP, and that such a sentence constituted cruel or unusual punishment, noting the trial court was bound to impose the sentence, and defendant failed to establish it was cruel or unusual punishment. Affirmed.