Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Prejudice

Holding that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed his convictions of CSC I. His convictions arose out of his repeated sexual assaults of the victim over the course of a 7-month period beginning when she was 10 years old. On appeal, he argued that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by: (1) failing to present video evidence of the victim and defendant playing and spending time together, (2) advising him not to testify at trial notwithstanding his desire to testify, (3) failing to call a particular witness, (4) failing to inform him that he could be convicted on the basis of the victim’s testimony alone, and (5) failing to request a bench trial contrary to his wishes. First, the court presumed counsel’s decision not to seek admission of the video was a matter of trial strategy, noting that, in any event, “the evidence would have been cumulative of the victim’s testimony.” In addition, to the extent “defense counsel advised defendant not to testify, defendant has failed to overcome the presumption that counsel’s advice constituted sound trial strategy.” Next, the proposed witness’s “testimony would have been cumulative of the testimony of both the victim and her mother.” And because she “moved out of the home shortly after the first sexual assault occurred,” the relevance of her testimony was limited. Defendant also “failed to establish that his trial counsel’s failure to call” her as a witness “denied him a substantial defense.” Further, he failed “to indicate what he would have done differently if his attorney had advised him that the victim’s testimony alone was sufficient to convict him.” Finally, he “failed to overcome the presumption that counsel’s decision to proceed with a jury trial constituted sound trial strategy.” The record was “devoid of any indication that defendant preferred a bench trial rather than a jury trial.”