Sufficiency of the evidence for a first-degree premeditated murder conviction; People v Oros; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to use a police report to impeach a witness; Factual basis for a claim; Failure to provide defendant with a full discovery packet; Failure to call a specific witness; Prejudice; Admission of a photo; Relevance; Unfair prejudice; Harmless error

The court held that there was sufficient evidence of the premeditation element to support defendant’s first-degree murder conviction. The case arose from the murder of victim-G at the residence of a woman (C) who testified “that she had an intermittent relationship with defendant” and that after she discovered him with another woman (M), she engaged in a relationship with G, M’s ex-boyfriend. The jury was presented with evidence that “defendant sent a text message on the morning of the shooting to [M], asking for [G’s] address. [G] had recently been staying at [C’s] trailer. At about noon that day, defendant found” G there. When he “arrived, he got out of his truck and started shooting without saying anything. Defendant shot [G] seven times, killing him. The handgun that was linked to the shooting was registered to and found in the possession of defendant.” The court determined that from “this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that defendant obtained his handgun, got into his truck, and set out to find and kill [G]. Those inferences support a conclusion that defendant thought about his actions before carrying them out and had time during his drive [to] subject his planned actions to a ‘second look.’” In addition, he fired his gun at G seven times, “leading to a reasonable conclusion that defendant’s actions were deliberate and premeditated. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have reasonably found beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] committed the murder with premeditation and deliberation.” The court noted that to the extent he appeared “to argue that the jury should have reached a contrary conclusion and that there was evidence that would have supported a contrary conclusion, we defer to the jury’s assessments regarding the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses; it is not our task as an appellate court to redetermine those assessments anew.” The court also rejected his claims in his Standard 4 brief that defense counsel was ineffective and that the trial court erred in admitting a photo of the victim’s damaged car. Affirmed.