People of Michigan v. Demond Steele
328874
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Defendant Demond Steele was convicted by jury of two counts of AWIGBH, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm (second offense) for a July 4, 2014 Pingree Street shooting; sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender.
- At trial witnesses testified Steele shot three times, wounding Chike Kelley and Che Daniels and firing at Eric Garland.
- Defense planned to call Steele (defendant’s father) on the third day; counsel later said Steele would attack Kelley’s credibility and possibly confess to being the shooter.
- On the fourth day Steele met with defense counsel, then disappeared from the courthouse; counsel had a standby attorney briefly appointed who could not locate Steele.
- Defense counsel did not request an adjournment or further assistance to find Steele and rested; Steele never appeared, gave no affidavit, and never waived the Fifth Amendment.
- Defendant appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek an adjournment or to locate Steele; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an adjournment or locating Steele | Prosecutor: trial record shows counsel acted reasonably; no prejudice shown | Steele argues counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial because Steele’s testimony (or confession) could have undermined prosecution witnesses | Court: No error apparent; counsel’s actions not objectively unreasonable and no prejudice shown |
| Whether failure to call Steele deprived defendant of a substantial defense | Prosecutor: no evidence Steele would testify or waive Fifth; counsel could not compel testimony | Steele: Steele’s alleged willingness to confess would have been a substantial defense | Court: Not a substantial defense because Steele could not be subpoenaed to waive Fifth and had not indicated reliable availability |
| Whether counsel’s conduct overcame presumption of sound trial strategy | Prosecutor: decisions were strategic and reasonable given circumstances | Steele: inaction was unsound strategy given reliance on attacking credibility | Court: Presumption of sound strategy not overcome; counsel’s caution was reasonable |
| Whether prejudice exists from counsel not seeking adjournment | Prosecutor: no showing Steele would appear or confess; trial court likely would have denied adjournment | Steele: outcome would differ if Steele had confessed | Court: No reasonable probability of different result; no prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Petri, 279 Mich. App. 407 (preservation rule for ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Matuszak, 263 Mich. App. 42 (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Riley (After Remand), 468 Mich. 135 (Strickland standard applied in Michigan)
- People v. Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (prejudice standard—reasonable probability test)
- People v. Solmonson, 261 Mich. App. 657 (presumption of effective assistance)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (presumption that counsel’s choices are trial strategy)
- People v. Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (failure to call witness and substantial-defense analysis)
- People v. Chapo, 283 Mich. App. 360 (definition of substantial defense)
- People v. Tommolino, 187 Mich. App. 14 (failure to seek adjournment to procure alibi witnesses may be unreasonable)
- People v. Dyer, 425 Mich. 572 (cannot compel witness to testify knowing they will invoke Fifth Amendment)