Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to argue defendant should have been charged & sentenced as a juvenile; Automatic waiver; MCL 764.1f(1); Failure to sufficiently prepare witnesses for trial & to utilize certain evidence; Failure to provide the correct plea offer; Failure to call an expert witness; Motion for new trial

Concluding that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for new trial, the court affirmed. He was convicted of CSC I, CSC II, and assault with intent of sexual penetration. He first asserted “that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to argue that defendant should have been charged and sentenced as a juvenile, not an adult, because he was under 14 years old when he committed the acts in support of his convictions.” The court noted that the case involved the automatic waiver process. “The prosecutor automatically waived the family division’s jurisdiction by filing a felony complaint and jurisdiction was vested in the criminal division of the circuit court.” Defendant’s acquittal of a CSC I charge “under MCL 750.520b(2)(b) did not strip the criminal division of its jurisdiction. Once jurisdiction has properly attached, ‘there is a presumption against divesting a court of its jurisdiction . . . and any doubt is resolved in favor of retaining jurisdiction.’” The court noted that the “criminal division had jurisdiction to sentence defendant as an adult for his convictions. Moreover, testimony at trial established that defendant was 14 years of age or older when the offense occurred. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to advocate for a meritless position.” The court also rejected his other ineffective assistance claims. Finally, defendant argued “that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial.” But considering the evidence presented and witness-TH’s “recantation testimony, the trial court did not err by concluding that TH’s testimony would not make a different result probable on retrial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for new trial.”