Ineffective assistance of counsel; Matters of trial strategy; Prejudice; Exclusion of text message evidence; Hearsay; Discovery; Alleged violations of MCL 767.40a(3), MCR 6.201(A)(1), & MCR 6.201(A)(3); Remedy; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Curriculum vitae (CV)

The court rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding his text messages to the victim (CH). As to discovery violations, while it did “not condone the prosecution’s violation of MCL 767.40a and the” MCRs, it found defendant was not prejudiced as a result of the conduct. Finally, it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness (S) to testify as an expert pursuant to MRE 702. Thus, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions of unarmed robbery and engaging the services of another person for the purpose of prostitution. He argued defense “counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the cell-site location data presented by the prosecution and failing to consult or present any defense witnesses to rebut that evidence.” The court determined that “counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.” The record showed “that defense counsel did not seek a rebuttal witness regarding the cell-site location data because the prosecution failed to provide adequate notice regarding its intent to present [S] as an expert witness during trial. The prosecution neglected to provide an endorsed witness list until one business day before the bench trial,” or to provide defense counsel with S’s CV and final report. Defense counsel raised numerous objections during the bench trial “to the prosecution’s presentation of [S] as an expert witness, particularly in light of the lack of notice . . . .” The court found that under the “circumstances, defense counsel was not objectively unreasonable for neglecting to further investigate the cell-site location data presented by the prosecution, consult any defense witnesses to rebut the aforementioned evidence, or seek potential funding for the acquisition of an expert witness.” Further, defendant failed to show prejudice. As to the prosecution’s discovery violations, it did not appear he was prejudiced by S’s testimony. The “undisputed data corroborated CH’s testimony concerning her stolen cell phone, and the trial court recognized the limitations of cell-site location mapping.” It found CH’s testimony credible and the photos “taken by law enforcement of CH’s injuries matched her narrative.” Defendant did not show the trial court’s decision to admit S’s “testimony despite the prosecution’s discovery violations was outcome-determinative.”