People of Michigan v. MacCio Cortez Williams
331906
Mich. Ct. App.Jul 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Maccio Cortez Williams shot at acquaintances and was convicted of three counts of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm, felony firearm, possession of a dangerous weapon, and felon in possession of a firearm.
- Trial court sentenced defendant within the recommended minimum sentencing range: concurrent terms for assaults and related convictions, plus a consecutive two-year term for felony firearm.
- Defendant argued his assault sentences were disproportionate given his limited criminal history, employment, remorse, and community support.
- Defendant also argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions of the victim’s impact statement in the presentence investigation report that described him as a continuing threat.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the within-guidelines sentences were disproportionate and whether counsel’s omission constituted ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentences for assault were disproportionate | Sentences within guideline range are presumptively reasonable; no scoring error or inaccurate information | Sentences are disproportionate given this was an isolated incident, good character, remorse, employment, and community support | Affirmed — within-guidelines sentence upheld; no basis for resentencing under Schrauben rule |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to victim impact comments in PSIR | Victim has statutory right to submit impact statements; objection would be futile | Failure to object to prejudicial, irrelevant victim statements deprived defendant of effective counsel | Affirmed — no ineffective assistance because objections would have been meritless; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (2013) (when sentence is within recommended range, it must be affirmed absent scoring error or reliance on inaccurate information)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (2010) (failing to raise a meritless argument or futile objection is not ineffective assistance)
- People v Lucey, 287 Mich. App. 267 (2010) (trial court does not abuse discretion by including victim's subjective impact statement in PSIR)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1974) (establishes procedure for evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel)