People of Michigan v. James Everett Frison
331457
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Defendant James Everett Frison convicted by jury of embezzlement of property valued $50,000–$100,000 (Komatsu excavator) and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 9–25 years.
- Complainants (Barbara and Kees Vandervelden) owned the excavator and hired defendant to move seven pieces of equipment in a specified order; the Komatsu failed to arrive and was later found elsewhere after being reported stolen and insured.
- Trial testimony was essentially a credibility contest: defendant claimed the owners knew the excavator’s location and denied allowing others to use it; complainants testified defendant said he delivered it as instructed.
- Trial counsel did not obtain certain telephone records, repair-shop records, or subpoena a repair-shop owner who purportedly remembered the defendant and the trailer.
- Defense and trial counsel contend those records would have corroborated defendant’s version and constituted a substantial defense; trial counsel admitted possible ineffectiveness.
- The Court of Appeals declined to resolve most appellate issues and remanded for a Ginther evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel’s omissions amounted to ineffective assistance that prejudiced the defense; jurisdiction was retained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain telephone and repair records and subpoena the repair-shop witness | Trial/appellee maintains conviction should stand; no clear showing counsel’s omissions changed outcome | Records and witness would have corroborated defendant, undercut complainants, and deprived prosecution of proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Remanded for Ginther hearing to develop the factual record on this ineffective-assistance claim |
| Whether failure to present the records deprived defendant of a substantial defense | Prosecution implicitly contends no substantial-defense showing yet made on record | Defense asserts omission deprived defendant of critical corroborating evidence | Trial court must determine at Ginther hearing whether a substantial defense was lost |
| Whether there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome if records had been presented | Prosecution argues outcome is not reasonably probable to change absent developed record | Defendant contends evidence would have likely changed jury credibility findings | Court held appellate record insufficient to decide; remand required to assess prejudice (reasonable probability) |
| Whether appellate court should resolve other raised issues now | Appellee seeks affirmation; raised issues not addressed below | Defendant sought broader appellate relief including ineffective assistance | Court declined to address most other issues and limited proceedings on remand to the ineffective-assistance inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (trial-court evidentiary hearing required for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281 (application of Strickland standard; reasonable-probability prejudice)
- Harrington v Richter, 562 US 86 (review must avoid hindsight and defer to reasonable trial strategy)
- Cullen v Pinholster, 563 US 170 (courts should consider range of reasonable strategic explanations)
- People v Hernandez, 443 Mich 1 (remand for evidentiary development where potential merit shown)