Sufficiency of the evidence for an assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH) conviction; People v. Blevins; Intent; People v. Stevens; Self-defense; MCL 780.972; People v. Dupree; Credibility; People v. Mikulen; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Urban; Strickland v. Washington; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Putman; People v. Rockey; People v. Carll; Failure to call a certain witness or present certain evidence; People v. Jackson; Failure to investigate; People v. Caballero; Sentencing; Effect of a within guidelines sentence; People v. Schrauben; Cruel & unusual punishment; Presumptive proportionality of a within guidelines sentence; People v. Powell; People v. Bowling; “Unusual circumstances”; People v. Davis; People v. Piotrowski; People v. Daniel

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s AWIGBH conviction, and rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and challenges to his sentence, the court affirmed his conviction and sentence. He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 6 to 20 years. The court first noted that the victim’s (S) testimony alone “was sufficient to establish that defendant assaulted her.” She testified that he “punched her in the face and kicked her repeatedly once she fell to the ground.” Her extensive injuries supported a finding that she was assaulted. She also testified “she was afraid that defendant would kill her.” This testimony was sufficient to establish that he threatened her with force. Further, it could be inferred from the extent and nature of her “injuries that defendant intended to do ‘serious injury of an aggravated nature.’” S sustained extensive injuries to “her ribs, vertebrae, right orbital bone, and wrist. As of trial, approximately six months after the assault, many of her injuries had not yet healed, and her wrist was permanently damaged.” Viewing her testimony that defendant’s actions caused her “injuries in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it is clear that there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant intended to do great bodily harm.” The court also determined that her testimony and the 911 recordings were “sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense.” S testified that his attack was unprovoked. She denied trying to hit him with a hammer and testified that he grabbed the hammer instead. Her testimony established that she did not attack him before “his assault, so defendant could not have been attempting to protect himself from any harm. When defendant called 911 to complain that [she] was stealing from him, he did not mention that [she] had attacked him. He also specifically stated that no weapon was present. A recording of the call was played for the jury, and [S] could be heard moaning in the background that she wanted to go home, corroborating” her account of events. This “evidence was sufficient to defeat defendant’s self-defense claim.” That he did not believe her “testimony or provided conflicting testimony is immaterial; the jury” found her more credible, and the court “must not interfere with that determination.”