People of Michigan v. Jermaine Dejuan Heflin
332338
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Defendant Jermaine Heflin was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder and felony-firearm for the December 23, 2014 shooting death of Abdoul A. Alfassa-Kondo (Aziz); sentence: life for murder, consecutive mandatory 2 years for felony-firearm.
- Codefendant Treasure Glover‑Smoot pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and testified for the prosecution; while in custody she was shown a single photo and identified Heflin as the shooter.
- Trial counsel moved to suppress Glover‑Smoot’s identification at the start of trial; the hearing occurred over two days and the trial court denied suppression, finding an independent basis for the in‑court ID.
- Other eyewitnesses (Vukojevic and Woodard) also identified Heflin at trial and testified to seeing him with a gun and making statements implicating himself in the shooting.
- On appeal Heflin argued ineffective assistance of counsel based on (1) late motion to suppress the photo ID, (2) failure to use discovery/Crisnet statements, and (3) failure to give an opening statement and limited cross‑examination; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for moving to suppress Glover‑Smoot’s ID only at trial start | The prosecution: the lone‑photo procedure did not require suppression because an independent basis existed for the in‑court ID | Heflin: counsel delayed suppression; the photo ID was unduly suggestive and tainted other IDs | Court: No ineffective assistance; counsel acted promptly at trial and independent bases (prior familiarity, contemporaneous observations) supported admittance |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to use Crisnet/discovery materials | Prosecution: defendant failed to identify what materials would help or show prejudice; claim is speculative and unbriefed | Heflin: counsel did not use police statements/discovery that could have undermined prosecution case | Court: Claim abandoned/unpreserved; defendant failed to establish factual predicate or prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for waiving opening statement and not cross‑examining certain witnesses | Prosecution: decisions on opening statement and cross‑examination are strategic; multiple witnesses strongly identified defendant | Heflin: failure to give opening and limited cross of Hopes (who couldn’t ID shooter) amounted to ineffective assistance | Court: No ineffective assistance; choices fell within trial strategy and omission did not deprive defendant of a substantial defense given other identification evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant must show counsel error and reasonable probability of different outcome)
- People v. Gray, 457 Mich. 107 (Mich. 1998) (unduly suggestive identification requires suppression absent independent basis)
- People v. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289 (Mich. 1993) (clear‑error standard for admission of identification evidence)
- People v. Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (waiving opening statement is trial strategy rarely showing ineffective assistance)
- People v. Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (issues not raised below are reviewed on existing record; remand requirements)
- People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (Mich. 1973) (procedures for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. Armstrong, 490 Mich. 281 (Mich. 2011) (trial court must find facts then apply law in ineffective assistance review)