People of Michigan v. Jamal Basim El-Amin
330635
Mich. Ct. App.May 23, 2017Background
- Police officers observed El-Amin near a parked car, pursued him on foot, and saw him enter an abandoned house; officer Ibrahimovic testified El‑Amin dropped a plastic bag on the lawn and threw a gun down interior stairs before surrendering.
- Officers recovered the plastic bag (heroin and cocaine) from the lawn and a rusted revolver from the bottom of the house stairs; El‑Amin was arrested and later found with $281 and a tally sheet.
- Defense witnesses and El‑Amin testified he was urinating near the vacant house and was immediately detained by police; none testified that officers found drugs or a gun on his person.
- At trial Ibrahimovic testified the recovered revolver had its serial number scratched off and opined (from experience) why someone would deface a serial number; defense objected to relevance.
- After conviction on multiple drug and firearm counts, the trial court initially imposed sentences based on erroneous information that El‑Amin had a prior felony‑firearm conviction; the court later resentenced after discovering the error.
- El‑Amin appealed claiming Fourth Amendment suppression error, ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress, improper admission of testimony about the defaced serial number, prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias during closing, and erroneous resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment seizure and suppression of bag/gun | Evidence admissible because items were abandoned before seizure; no suppression warranted | Officers unlawfully seized El‑Amin leading to suppression of fruits of seizure | Court: No plain error; items abandoned before submission/physical restraint; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress | Counsel not ineffective because suppression motion would have been futile | Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek suppression | Court: No ineffective assistance; motion would have been futile given abandonment/no seizure nexus |
| Admission of testimony about defaced serial number (relevance/prejudice) | Testimony permissible and not outcome‑determinative | Testimony irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, implying criminal propensity | Court: Even if erroneous, admission was harmless; single, limited reference did not affect outcome |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias during closing | Objections were routine and did not suggest bad faith; judge’s comments not biased | Objection and judge’s remark improperly suggested defense counsel misled jury and showed judicial bias | Court: No plain error; prosecutor’s objection legitimate; judge’s comment did not demonstrate deep‑seated bias or improperly influence jury |
| Resentencing after discovery of prior‑conviction error | Resentencing proper because original sentences were based on inaccurate information | Trial court exceeded authority by modifying valid portions of original sentence | Court: Affirmed resentencing as required by People v Miles; original sentences invalid because based on incorrect prior conviction information |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (fleeing from officers does not constitute a seizure absent submission or physical force)
- People v Lewis, 199 Mich. App. 556 (abandonment of discarded items before seizure defeats suppression)
- People v Frohriep, 247 Mich. App. 692 (Fourth Amendment safeguards attach only after a seizure)
- People v Miles, 454 Mich. 90 (resentencing required when original sentence rests on inaccurate information)
- People v Thomas, 447 Mich. 390 (correction of partially invalid sentences and limits on modifying valid sentence parts)
- People v Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (preserved nonconstitutional error tested under MCL 769.26 outcome‑determinative standard)