People of Michigan v. Raymond Lamont Cheatham
327197
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2016Background
- Defendant Raymond Cheatham was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to commit murder for shooting Tiesean Hatchett during the early morning of October 3, 2014; victim required emergency surgery.
- Prosecution presented eyewitnesses who: observed a prior fight between defendant and Hatchett hours earlier; placed defendant at the shooting, including Dennis Brown who identified defendant in a photo lineup and at trial; and reported the shooter said “revenge” and asked if Hatchett remembered him before shooting.
- Defense challenged identity and presented arguments about cellphone “ping” evidence and an alleged alibi witness (Tiffany Perry) not called at trial.
- Trial counsel elicited limited cellphone “ping” testimony from a detective; defendant later claimed counsel was ineffective for doing so and for failing to investigate/call the alibi.
- After conviction, defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender; the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing under People v Lockridge because several offense variables were scored based on judicial factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence | Evidence (eyewitness ID, prior fight, shooter’s statements) supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt | ID insufficient to prove defendant was shooter | Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in prosecution’s favor |
| Admissibility of detective’s cellphone “ping” testimony | Testimony was not expert, but harmless and was elicited by defense | Court allowed unqualified testimony that placed phone near scene (plain error) | Waived by defendant (elicited by defense); harmless even if error |
| Ineffective assistance for eliciting cellphone testimony | Counsel’s conduct reasonable given defendant’s statements about phone records | Counsel was objectively deficient and prejudicial | Denied — counsel’s questioning was reasonable and not deficient |
| Ineffective assistance for not investigating/calling alibi | Trial counsel knew of or should have discovered alibi; failure prejudiced defense | Counsel was unaware of alibi despite contacts; no basis for new trial | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; no Ginther hearing required |
| Confrontation/presence at post-trial hearing | Defendant claimed right to be present and cross-examine counsel’s out-of-court statement | Trial court received counsel’s statement outside defendant’s presence and denied Ginther hearing | Denied — no constitutional violation; court properly exercised discretion |
| Sentencing (OV scoring) and Sixth Amendment | OV scoring used judicial factfinding to increase mandatory minimum | Trial court relied on facts not found by jury, affecting range | Remanded for resentencing under Lockridge (guidelines now advisory) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015) (Michigan sentencing guidelines must be applied as advisory after Alleyne problem)
- People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392; 614 NW2d 78 (2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210; 749 NW2d 272 (2008) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973) (procedure for evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims)