in Re Riccardo Covin
331637
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Juvenile respondent (age 11 at time of alleged incidents) was adjudicated guilty of two counts of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct for assaults on twin boys who were babysat at respondent’s home.
- Allegations: over 2013–2014 respondent restrained the twins and attempted oral penetration; twins first disclosed in Feb 2014 to a neighbor and later to mother, police, Kids Talk, and at trial.
- Respondent denied the allegations; defense argued the twins’ testimony was inconsistent and not credible and suggested retaliation after babysitting arrangement ended.
- Trial court found the twins’ accounts credible and placed respondent outside the home in a non-secure facility; respondent appealed claiming (1) trial court relied on inadmissible evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Appellate court reviewed the evidentiary claim for plain error and the IAC claim on the record; it examined whether counsel’s decisions about witnesses and objections were reasonable trial strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner/Appellee Argument | Respondent/Appellant Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court relied on inadmissible out-of-court statements to find twins credible | Trial court’s findings rested on admitted evidence and reasonable inferences from repeated consistent disclosures | Court improperly relied on inadmissible hearsay (twins’ repeated statements) to bolster credibility | No plain error; court drew reasonable inferences from admissible evidence of repeated consistent disclosures over two years |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call three adult siblings | N/A (prosecution) | Counsel should have called siblings who would testify they saw nothing unusual, which might have affected outcome | No IAC: tactical choice; siblings’ affidavits showed limited presence and added little beyond mother’s testimony already used by defense |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to mother’s testimony about what twins told her | N/A (prosecution) | Counsel failed to object to hearsay statements that prejudiced respondent | No IAC: counsel strategically used that testimony on cross to support defense theory (babysitting dispute); not objectively unreasonable |
| Whether respondent was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged errors | N/A | Counsel’s errors likely changed trial result | No prejudice shown; no reasonable probability outcome would differ but for counsel’s choices |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v Smith, 211 Mich. App. 233 (1995) (sufficiency of findings when court aware of issues and applied law)
- People v Reese, 491 Mich. 127 (2012) (clear-error standard for bench trial factual findings)
- People v Vaughn, 186 Mich. App. 376 (1990) (trier may make reasonable inferences from evidence)
- People v Wofford, 196 Mich. App. 275 (1992) (bench trial court presumed to know law and difference between admissible and inadmissible evidence)
- People v Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (2012) (review of unpreserved ineffective assistance claims limited to errors apparent on record)
- People v Nix, 301 Mich. App. 195 (2013) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v Russell, 297 Mich. App. 707 (2012) (calling witnesses is presumed a matter of trial strategy)
- People v Chapo, 283 Mich. App. 360 (2009) (definition of a substantial defense that could affect outcome)
- People v Powell, 235 Mich. App. 557 (1999) (impermissible to expand the record on appeal)
- People v Rockey, 237 Mich. App. 74 (1999) (defense strategy decisions are not second-guessed on appeal)
- People v Benton, 294 Mich. App. 191 (2011) (courts will not second-guess tactical decisions of counsel)
- People v Stewart (On Remand), 219 Mich. App. 38 (1996) (unsuccessful strategy alone does not establish ineffective assistance)
We affirm.