People of Michigan v. Billy Melvin Howard
320695
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Defendant Billy Melvin Howard was convicted by a jury of multiple firearm and assault offenses (three counts assault with intent to commit murder, felonious assault, intentional discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, intentional discharge at a dwelling, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm) and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
- The shooting occurred when shots were fired from the passenger side of a Buick; two eyewitnesses (Jermaine King and Marquisha) placed Howard in the passenger seat and identified him as the shooter.
- Defendant claimed alibi and argued misidentification; defense presented two alibi witnesses and sought to call Germaine Howard (defendant’s brother/codefendant) as a defense witness. Germaine pleaded guilty separately and did not testify at the jury trial.
- Defendant raised ineffective-assistance claims, judicial-bias/misconduct and confrontation claims, and later challenged judicial fact-finding in sentencing on Alleyne/Lockridge grounds; the case was remanded for a Ginther hearing on counsel effectiveness issues.
- After the Ginther hearing, the trial court record showed defense counsel (Nyenhuis) conducted investigations, made strategic decisions (including not calling Germaine and not calling certain witnesses), and successfully obtained directed verdicts on two counts; the Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions and denied resentencing relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to call Germaine as witness | Counsel’s tactical choice was reasonable; record does not show deficiency or prejudice | Failure to call brother deprived Howard of a substantial defense (alibi) and counsel was conflicted | Court: No ineffective assistance; decision likely strategic, no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Ineffective assistance for not moving directed verdict on all counts | Sufficient evidence supported convictions; directed verdict motions at trial covered key counts | Counsel should have moved for directed verdict on other assault-with-intent counts | Court: No error — sufficient evidence for those convictions; counsel not ineffective |
| Sufficiency of evidence (identification) | Eyewitness IDs and daylight observation supported conviction | Presence at scene insufficient; identifications unreliable/changed | Court: Convictions supported; positive IDs were for jury to weigh |
| Judicial bias/misconduct at sentencing and trial | Judge’s remarks were proper sentencing comments and record-noting of in-court IDs did not vouch for witnesses | Trial judge injected personal bias and endorsed eyewitness IDs, requiring resentencing/new trial | Court: No actual personal bias or impartiality pierced; comments were within sentencing role and curative jury instructions mitigated any risk |
| Failure to investigate / prepare / call impeachment witnesses (Marsha) | Counsel conducted reasonable investigation, made strategic choices, attempted impeachment and preserved record; unavailability justified | Counsel failed to interview prosecution witnesses and did not call/impeach with Marsha’s report, undermining defense | Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel investigated, attempted impeachment; Marsha’s evidence not likely to change result |
| Confrontation Clause re: refusal to recall Marquisha | Defendant had opportunity to cross-examine; trial court properly exercised discretion on recall | Denial to recall for further cross violated Confrontation Clause | Court: No violation — cross-examination occurred; recall denial within discretion and not outcome-determinative |
| Sentencing: judicial fact-finding (OV 6 and OV 13) under Alleyne/Lockridge | Assessments were proper or waived; issue not preserved on remand and exceeded remand scope | Judicial fact-finding increased sentence based on facts beyond jury verdict, requiring resentencing | Court: Waived/unpreserved and remand-limited; claim not addressed on merit and review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (review of ineffective-assistance claims; preservation and standards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest rule; actual conflict required)
- People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (prejudice and reasonable-probability test for counsel performance)
- People v Russell, 297 Mich. App. 707 (failure to call witness constitutes ineffective assistance only if it deprives defendant of substantial defense)
- People v Stevens, 498 Mich. 162 (when judicial conduct pierces veil of impartiality; plain-error review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. (constitutional rule on facts increasing mandatory minimums — cited as basis for sentencing challenge)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (Michigan treatment of mandatory OV fact-finding post- Alleyne)