People of Michigan v. Alphonso L Straughter Jr
328956
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Defendant Alphonso L. Straughter Jr. was convicted after jury trial of carjacking, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, second-degree home invasion, and unlawful imprisonment for a January 2, 2015 incident in which the victim, older male Gunther, was restrained, placed in a car trunk, and later escaped.
- Co-participant Destiny Gerwatowski (17 at the time) testified for the prosecution pursuant to a plea deal; her testimony implicated defendant and an accomplice referred to as “Jack.”
- Gunther identified defendant in a photo lineup the day after the robbery and later identified “Jack” from a second lineup; police also recovered video of defendant at a Kroger/Coinstar and motel records placing him that night.
- Sergeant Fobar testified about cell‑tower/phone records and introduced exhibits purporting to show the phone’s sector location for calls made the night of the offense; Fobar was not offered as an expert.
- At sentencing the trial court scored offense variable 7 (OV 7) at 50 points for extreme victim fear and treated defendant as a habitual offender; the record lacked a filed proof of service of habitual‑offender notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo lineup suggestiveness | Lineup was proper and not unduly suggestive | Lineup layout and hair differences created substantial likelihood of misidentification | Affirmed: differences not constitutionally suggestive; lineup participants matched on race/age/size and order was automated |
| Juror misconduct / mistrial | No prejudice from juror’s report of verbal assault; no basis for mistrial | Trial court should have sua sponte granted mistrial when juror reported feeling verbally assaulted | Affirmed: no showing of prejudice or bias and juror said she felt better; mistrial not required |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to cell‑tower testimony/exhibits | Fobar’s technical testimony required expert qualification; counsel should have objected/investigated | Counsel failed to investigate and clarify technical evidence | Counsel deficient for failing to investigate/objec t, but prejudice not shown given strong independent evidence; conviction stands |
| Sentencing: OV 7 scoring; habitual‑offender notice; Lockridge/allocution | OV7 properly scored for placing victim in trunk; prosecutor complied with habitual‑offender notice | OV7 not attributable to defendant’s actual participation; no proof of service for habitual‑offender notice; Lockridge and allocution errors | OV7 score upheld; habitual‑offender sentencing vacated due to absent proof of service; remand for resentencing without habitual enhancement and with proper Lockridge/allocution procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289 (identification due‑process standard for suggestive pretrial procedures)
- People v Hornsby, 251 Mich. App. 462 (importance of physical similarity among lineup participants)
- People v Nick, 360 Mich. 219 (standard for when juror misconduct requires new trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test)
- People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (counsel’s duty to investigate and consult experts)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (OV 7: conduct beyond minimum and intent to substantially increase fear)
- People v Cobley, 463 Mich. 893 (procedural requirement that prosecutor file/serve habitual‑offender notice; failure requires vacatur)
- In re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 496 Mich. 320 (statutory mandatory duties must be performed within specified time frames)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (advisory nature of Michigan sentencing guidelines post‑Blakely)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to trial strategy in ineffective‑assistance review)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (procedures for evidentiary hearing on ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v Petit, 466 Mich. 624 (allocation/allocution practice at sentencing)