ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Michigan

2024This state has adopted the federal constitutional standard for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as set forth in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

2024This state has adopted the federal constitutional standard for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as set forth in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

2024“To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 187 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012).

2021To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. [People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 187 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012) (citations omitted).] The “reasonable probability” standard can be satisfied by less than a preponderance of the evidence.

2015See Lopez, 305 Mich App at 693 ; People v Watkins, 247 Mich App 14, 31 ; 634 NW2d 370 (2001) (refusing to consider the defendant’s affidavit in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it was not part of the lower court record), aff’d but criticized on other grounds by 468 Mich 233 (2003).

2015See Lopez, 305 Mich App at 693 ; People v Watkins, 247 Mich App 14, 31 ; 634 NW2d 370 (2001) (refusing to consider the defendant’s affidavit in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it was not part of the lower court record), aff’d but criticized on other grounds by 468 Mich 233 (2003).

2025To preserve an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for appellate review, a defendant must move for a new trial or request an evidentiary hearing in the trial court, People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 80 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012), or file with this Court a motion to remand for a Ginther5 hearing, Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App at 227.

2025To preserve an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for appellate review, a defendant must move for a new trial or request an evidentiary hearing in the trial court, People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 80 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012), or file with this Court a motion to remand for a Ginther5 hearing, Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App at 227.

2025People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289-290 ; 806 NW2d 676 (2011); see also, People v. Pickens, 446 Mich 298 , 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (adopting the federal constitutional standard for an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim as set forth in Strickland ).

2025People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289-290 ; 806 NW2d 676 (2011); see also, People v. Pickens, 446 Mich 298 , 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (adopting the federal constitutional standard for an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim as set forth in Strickland ).

2017See Strickland, 466 US at 694 ; People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6 (1999) (“[D]efendant has the burden of establishing the factual predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel[.]”). 3 In assessing, on collateral review, the merits of a long-delayed claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, such as the claim alleged by defendant here, the court should look closely at the prejudice requirement of an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim.

2016See People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6 ; 594 Mich NW2d 57 (1999) (stating that a defendant carries the burden to factually support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

2016Review of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is “limited to mistakes apparent on the appellate record.” People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 368 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002).

2016Review of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is “limited to mistakes apparent on the appellate record.” People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 368 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002).

2026“A trial court’s findings of fact, if any, are reviewed for clear error, and this Court reviews the ultimate constitutional issue arising from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim de novo.” Id.

2026“A trial court’s findings of fact, if any, are reviewed for clear error, and this Court reviews the ultimate constitutional issue arising from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim de novo.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 410 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008).

2026To prove an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that “(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012).

2026To prove an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that “(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012).

2025To show trial counsel’s performance failed to meet an objective standard of reasonableness, and meet the first prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “a defendant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s performance was born from a sound trial strategy.” People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 585 ; 852 NW2d 587 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2025To show trial counsel’s performance failed to meet an objective standard of reasonableness, and meet the first prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “a defendant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s performance was born from a sound trial strategy.” People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 585 ; 852 NW2d 587 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2021A defendant must establish a factual basis for an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. [Hoang, 328 Mich App at 64 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] In addition, what evidence to present is presumed to be a matter of trial strategy, Jackson, 313 Mich App at 431-432 , and this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of counsel on matters of trial strategy, Payne, 285 Mich App at 190 .

2016Payne, 285 Mich App at 188 . 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -4- In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012).

2018Furthermore, given the brevity of the prosecution’s statement and the significant evidence of defendant’s guilt, even if defense counsel’s failure to object did fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, Vaughn, 491 Mich at 669 , defendant still failed to prove the second prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim—that it was reasonably likely that “the result of defendant’s trial would have been different” absent the alleged mistake.

2018Furthermore, given the brevity of the prosecution’s statement and the significant evidence of defendant’s guilt, even if defense counsel’s failure to object did fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, Vaughn, 491 Mich at 669 , defendant still failed to prove the second prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim—that it was reasonably likely that “the result of defendant’s trial would have been different” absent the alleged mistake.

2025For a defendant to succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the defendant must show “(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012). “[A] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 9 ; 917 NW2d 249 (2018).

2025For a defendant to succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the defendant must show “(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012). “[A] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 9 ; 917 NW2d 249 (2018).

2019“To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and that this performance caused him or her prejudice.” People v Nix, 301 Mich App 195, 207 ; 836 NW2d 224 (2013).

2019“To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and that this performance caused him or her prejudice.” People v Nix, 301 Mich App 195, 207 ; 836 NW2d 224 (2013).

2018When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “a reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the defendant’s trial counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affirmatively entertaining the range of possible reasons for the act or omission under the facts known to the reviewing court, there might have been a legitimate strategic reason for the act or omission.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22-23 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012).

2018When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “a reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the defendant’s trial counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affirmatively entertaining the range of possible reasons for the act or omission under the facts known to the reviewing court, there might have been a legitimate strategic reason for the act or omission.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22-23 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012).

2025“Generally, an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim presents a ‘mixed question of fact and constitutional law.’ ” People v Hieu Van Hoang, 328 Mich App 45 , 63; 935 NW2d 396 (2019), quoting People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 48 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004).

2025“Generally, an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim presents a ‘mixed question of fact and constitutional law.’ ” People v Hieu Van Hoang, 328 Mich App 45 , 63; 935 NW2d 396 (2019), quoting People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 48 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004).

2024“A trial court’s findings of fact, if any, are reviewed for clear error, and [we] review[] the ultimate constitutional issue arising from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim de novo.” People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 643 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“A trial court’s findings of fact, if any, are reviewed for clear error, and [we] review[] the ultimate constitutional issue arising from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim de novo.” People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 643 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that counsel rendered deficient performance on an object standard and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 600 ; 623 NW2d 884 (2001), citing Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 689 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

2016In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that counsel rendered deficient performance on an object standard and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 600 ; 623 NW2d 884 (2001), citing Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 689 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

2025Fyda, 288 Mich App at 450 .

2025People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 450 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010) (“To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”).

2025See Lane, 308 Mich App at 69-70 (rejecting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the defendant failed to establish the factual predicate of his claim).

2019To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Thomas must demonstrate that “(1) defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.” Lane, 308 Mich App at 68 .