Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Anderson; Failure to inquire into what sentence the prosecution would recommend if defendant accepted the plea agreement offered; People v. Douglas; Lafler v. Cooper; Missouri v. Frye; Prejudice; Griffin v. United States (6th Cir.); People v. Swirles; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); People v. Jackson; Relevance; MRE 401; People v. Sabin (After Remand); People v. McGhee; Materiality; People v. Savage; Evidence of flight; People v. Coleman; People v. Unger; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Crawford; People v. Vasher; Notice; MRE 404(b)(2); Admission of photos; People v. Mills; People v. Fisher

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the prosecution’s failure to notify him that it would elicit testimony about his flight from the deputies was harmless error. Further, admitting the challenged photos was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes and thus, the trial court’s evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant agreed on the record that his attorney relayed the plea "offer to him, and that he had discussed it with his attorney, but he said that he wanted to proceed to trial.” On appeal, he contended “that he asked his trial counsel what the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation was going to be, and she responded that she did not know.” He asserted that “it was deficient performance for trial counsel not to have made some inquiry of the prosecution as to what recommendations they were considering.” Assuming for the sake of argument that “trial counsel did not inquire into the prosecution’s anticipated sentencing recommendation, defendant has cited no authority supporting his assertion that failure to do so constitutes deficient performance at the plea-bargaining stage.” The record showed that “counsel accurately relayed the prosecution’s favorable plea-agreement offer to defendant.” And there was no record evidence, nor did he “assert, that counsel gave him legally flawed advice that caused him to reject the plea-agreement.” The court noted that there “may be a case where trial counsel’s failure to inquire into the prosecution’s anticipated sentencing recommendation could constitute deficient performance, but this does not strike us as that case. Further, even if we assumed for the sake of argument that trial counsel’s failure to ask about the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation constituted deficient performance,” he failed to show prejudice. The court noted that this case was distinguishable from Griffin. Affirmed.