Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Putman; People v. Lockett; People v. Vaughn; Failure to make a futile motion to suppress the defendant’s purported confession; People v. Neal; People v. Dunigan; Determining whether a statement was made voluntarily; People v. Tierney; People v. Fike; Possession of a controlled substance; People v. Bylsma; Intent to deliver; People v. Williams; Advice to waive the right to a preliminary exam; People v. McGee; Failure to seek an independent lab analysis of the seized contraband; People v. Trakhtenberg; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Bosca; People v. Russell; Failure to object to the contents of the lab report & the lab technician’s testimony based on chain of custody deficiencies; People v. White; Decision whether a defendant will testify; People v. Bonilla-Machado; People v. Tommolino; People v. Simmons

Rejecting the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court affirmed his convictions of possession with intent to deliver 50 to 449 grams of cocaine, possession of amphetamine, and possession of marijuana. He argued that defense counsel was ineffective for, among other things, failing to challenge the testimony of the officer in charge that defendant admitted that the drugs belonged to him and he sold cocaine. Defendant argued that defense counsel should have moved to suppress the confession. The court disagreed, noting that to the extent his claim was “based on his allegation that he never made the purported confession, any request for a motion to suppress on that basis would have been futile.” Determining whether “a statement was actually made is solely a question of fact for the jury.” The jury was “instructed that it could not consider defendant’s out-of-court statement unless it first determined” that he actually made it. It was apparent from the verdicts “that the jury concluded that the statement was accurate.” Defendant also argued that defense counsel should have sought a Walker hearing to determine whether the confession was voluntary. The court noted that “defendant was old enough to rent his own living space[,]” and there was no evidence that he “was of an education or intelligence level that interfered with his ability to understand his rights or his ability to voluntarily choose to make a statement about the offenses.” Given that he was a fourth habitual offender, he clearly “had prior experience with law enforcement, and his previous convictions were also drug-related.” There was no suggestion that the questioning was prolonged, and the record indicated that he was read and shown his Miranda rights before he answered questions. The court added that there was “not a reasonable probability” that, but for defense counsel’s alleged deficiency, the jury would have acquitted defendant, in light of the “overwhelming evidence” supporting his convictions “independent of the confession.” The “vast majority of the drugs” were located in the bedroom he rented, where he was “physically present when the police entered” the house, and “where several documents and forms of identification” in his name were also found.