People of Michigan v. Mark Anthony Head
329248
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Defendants Heather Glidden and Mark Head were tried jointly for attempted second-degree home invasion and conspiracy after surveillance video showed them at an unoccupied home; Head kicked the front door open but fled when a loud alarm sounded and no property was taken.
- Video showed repeated knocking, peering through windows, tampering with an exterior camera, and parking positioned for quick exit; Head then forced entry by kicking the door repeatedly while Glidden waited in the vehicle.
- Both were identified from the surveillance footage, charged, tried by jury, and convicted of attempted second-degree home invasion and conspiracy to commit second-degree home invasion.
- On appeal defendants argued (1) insufficiency of evidence as to intent to commit larceny, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel based on multiple alleged trial failures (no cross-examination, waived opening, timing of directed‑verdict motion, Miranda objection, failure to request lesser‑included instruction, counsel’s alleged personal distraction).
- The trial court held a Ginther hearing on some claims (Glidden) and the Court of Appeals reviewed preserved and unpreserved claims, affirming the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to intent to commit larceny | The prosecution contends circumstantial evidence (time/place, furtive behavior, tampering with camera, entry, flight on alarm, vehicle able to carry goods) supports an inference of intent to steal | Defendants argue intent cannot be inferred from breaking and entering alone; no property taken and no burglary tools show lack of larcenous intent | Court: Evidence sufficient — jury could infer intent from nature, time, place, conduct, tampering, and flight when alarm sounded |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to present defense (no cross‑examination, waived opening, limited instructions, closing) | Prosecution: counsel’s choices were strategic (mere‑presence defense), co‑defendant’s counsel cross‑examined witnesses, and defendant still testified | Glidden: counsel failed to meaningfully present a defense; distracted by personal issues | Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel presented a mere‑presence defense, made strategic choices, and defendant was not prejudiced |
| Miranda objection / counsel misunderstanding of law | Prosecution: admission of statement was proper; any objection had no effect on outcome | Glidden: counsel made a meritless Miranda objection because she was not in custody | Court: Claim fails — even if objection was mistaken, defendant shows no prejudice from the error |
| Failure to request lesser‑included instruction / timing of directed verdict | Prosecution: counsel may forgo lesser instruction as strategy to force all‑or‑nothing acquittal; directed‑verdict motion at a later time would have failed because prosecution presented sufficient evidence | Defendants: counsel was ineffective for not requesting instruction on breaking and entering without permission and for not moving for directed verdict at the ‘‘appropriate’’ time | Court: No ineffective assistance — choosing not to request lesser offense can be legitimate strategy; directed‑verdict motion would have been futile at the earlier point because the prosecution’s video evidence sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Uhl, 169 Mich. App. 217 (1988) (intent to commit larceny cannot be presumed from breaking and entering but may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- People v Dunigan, 299 Mich. App. 579 (2013) (elements of second‑degree home invasion include entry by breaking and intent to commit larceny)
- People v Jones, 443 Mich. 88 (1993) (elements required for attempt convictions)
- People v Silver, 466 Mich. 386 (2002) (when a greater offense requires a disputed factual element not part of a lesser offense, a lesser‑included instruction must be given on request)
- People v Fonville, 291 Mich. App. 363 (2010) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel review)
- People v Petri, 279 Mich. App. 407 (2008) (preservation rules and Ginther hearing framework)
- People v Cain, 238 Mich. App. 95 (1999) (intent to commit larceny is a question of fact for the jury)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)