Search & seizure; Validity of a search warrant; Judicial bias claim as to the judge who issued the warrant; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to suppress evidence; Impeaching witnesses with their criminal histories; Failure to request jury instructions on accomplice testimony; M Crim JI 5.6; Cumulative error; Sentencing; Consideration of refusal to admit guilt or the decision to go to trial; People v Dobek; Proportionality; People v Lampe; “Unusual” circumstances

The court held that the trial court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte suppress the fruits of a search warrant on the basis of bias by the judge who issued the warrant. It also rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and her sentencing challenges. Thus, it affirmed her conviction of soliciting another person to commit murder and her 10 to 40-year sentence. The case arose after she learned her ex-husband, E, “was dating another woman. Defendant became enraged, and she sought a hitman to murder” E’s girlfriend. On appeal, she first argued “that the search warrant used to seize her cell phone was invalid and” as a result, the text messages found on the phone should have been suppressed. The “judge who issued the search warrant of defendant’s home was familiar with [E] because they worked in the same circuit court.” Defendant contended the “judge impliedly conceded that he was biased against defendant when he (1) admitted to being familiar with defendant and [E] and (2) disqualified himself from the case after conducting defendant’s arraignment.” However, the court concluded the record did not show “the judge had a relationship with anyone involved in this case that would justify disqualification. There is no evidence of actual bias arising from the judge’s relationship with [E] or defendant.” In addition, “a mere acquaintanceship with another person—even a coworker—does not constitute the kind of relationship for which there is a serious risk of actual bias premised on objective and reasonable perceptions.” The court found that the “judge’s statements showed that he was minimally acquainted with [E], but that did not establish that the judge could not act as a neutral and detached magistrate for purposes of making a probable-cause determination.” Thus, the court determined that there was “nothing in the record supporting defendant’s argument that the judge who signed the search warrant was per se unqualified or disqualified from acting as a neutral and detached magistrate.” As a result, the court also held that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the text messages found on the cell phone. It likewise rejected her claims that defense “counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately impeach” two witnesses’ testimonies regarding their criminal histories, and for not requesting M Crim JI 5.6. Finally, the court upheld her within guidelines sentence.