Jury instructions; Waiver; People v. Kowalski; People v. Miller; Prejudice; People v. Carines; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Unger; AWIM; People v. Haynie; Identity; People v. Yost; People v. Nelson; Inferring intent; People v. Brown; People v. Everett; People v. Ackah Essien; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Randolph; Trial strategy; People v. LeBlanc; People v. Cooper; Failure to raise a futile objection; People v. Ericksen; Prejudice; People v. Fyda; Presumption that jurors follow their instructions

The court held that defendant was not prejudiced by the jury instructions and was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the evidence was sufficient to prove his identity as the shooter and his intent to kill to support his AWIM conviction. He was also convicted of carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, FIP, and three counts of felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him as a third-offense habitual offender to concurrent prison terms of 10 years and 6 months to 17 years and 6 months for AWIM, 2 to 10 years for carrying a weapon with unlawful intent and for FIP, to be served subsequent to concurrent 2-year terms for felony-firearm, with 17 days jail credit. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by repeating the jury instruction on the elements of felony-firearm in connection with the jury instructions for both AWIM and AWIGBH, finding he waived this claim and, in any event, could not show he was prejudiced by any error. It also rejected his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his AWIM conviction, finding the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the shooter, and that he intended to kill the victim. Finally, the court rejected his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, holding “defense counsel’s decision to refrain from requesting a mistrial or a curative instruction did not render his performance objectively deficient.” And even if defense counsel’s conduct had “fallen below an objective standard of reasonableness, defendant” failed to show that this conduct prejudiced him. Affirmed.