People of Michigan v. Carl Michael-James Clark
334119
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- On June 4, 2015, Detroit police responded to a shots-fired call; Officer Jones observed defendant Carl Michael-James Clark on the front lawn and testified Clark removed a gun from his waistband and dropped it in a trash can.
- Three officers (Jones, Covington, Maples) testified identifying Clark as the person who discarded the firearm; defense witnesses who were inside the house at the time said Clark did not have a gun.
- A second individual (Robert Hudson) was present that evening, but witnesses and officers testified Hudson looked different and officers placed Clark outside.
- A jury convicted Clark of: felon in possession of a firearm (MCL 750.224f), carrying a concealed weapon (MCL 750.227), and felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b).
- Clark was sentenced as a third habitual offender to concurrent prison terms (1–10 years; 1–5 years) and a mandatory 2-year felony-firearm term.
- Clark appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence due to contradictory testimony and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for not informing him of his right to testify and for not calling additional witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession and concealment of firearm | Officers positively identified Clark and testimony supported conviction | Testimony was contradictory and insufficient to prove Clark possessed the gun | Conviction affirmed — evidence viewed in prosecution's favor supports convictions |
| Identification reliability given presence of another person (Hudson) | Officers distinguished Hudson from Clark and placed Clark outside discarding the gun | Another person was present; identification was unreliable | Jury credibility determinations upheld; identification by officers was sufficient |
| Ineffective assistance — counsel failed to inform Clark of right to testify | Prosecutor: record contains no indication counsel failed to advise; presumption of sound strategy | Clark: counsel prevented him from testifying or failed to inform him of absolute right | Denied — no record evidence of counsel's failure and no prejudice shown even if error presumed |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call additional witnesses | Prosecutor: decision on witnesses is trial strategy; no showing additional witnesses would change outcome | Clark: more witnesses would corroborate defense and could alter verdict | Denied — defendant failed to identify witnesses or show prejudice; strategy decision entitled to deference |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (court reviews sufficiency of evidence de novo)
- People v. Davis, 241 Mich. App. 697 (positive eyewitness identification can support conviction)
- People v. Schumacher, 276 Mich. App. 165 (appellate deference to jury credibility findings)
- People v. McKinney, 258 Mich. App. 157 (court will not interfere with jury's role in weighing evidence)
- People v. Johnson, 293 Mich. App. 79 (standards for reviewing ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (two-part ineffective assistance test)
- People v. Riley, 468 Mich. 135 (presumption that counsel's choices reflect sound trial strategy)
- People v. Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (preservation rules for ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. Mack, 265 Mich. App. 122 (review limited to mistakes apparent on record absent Ginther hearing)
- People v. Hoag, 460 Mich. 1 (burden to show factual predicate for ineffective assistance)
- People v. Putman, 309 Mich. App. 240 (calling witnesses is trial strategy; ineffective only if it deprived defendant of substantial defense)
- People v. Solloway, 316 Mich. App. 174 (unsuccessful strategy alone does not establish ineffective assistance)
- People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (procedures for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claims)