People of Michigan v. Romier Dalvon Peters
336697
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Romier Dalvon Peters was convicted by jury of armed robbery and felony‑firearm for an August 25, 2015 armed robbery; sentenced to 84 months–20 years (armed robbery) and 2 years (felony‑firearm).
- While his direct appeal (Docket No. 333785) was pending, defendant moved in the trial court for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance because defense counsel prevented him from testifying; the trial court granted a new trial.
- The prosecution sought leave to appeal that grant (Docket No. 336697); the Court of Appeals considered both the prosecution’s appeal of the new‑trial order and defendant’s direct appeal issues.
- Key contested trial issues included admission of testimony that the handgun and vehicle used were stolen, late endorsement of two prosecution witnesses (Tamayo and Detective Smith), an in‑court identification by the victim (Pates), and alleged prosecutorial vouching for witness Tamayo.
- At sentencing the trial court scored OVs including OV 10 (15 points) and OV 19 (10 points) and imposed an upward departure to a minimum of 84 months based on seriousness and defendant’s in‑custody misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court’s grant of new trial based on counsel preventing defendant from testifying | Prosecution: no duty for trial court to on‑the‑record ascertain waiver; affidavit insufficient to show what defendant would have testified to or prejudice | Defendant: counsel repeatedly told him not to testify; he was thereby denied right to testify and effective assistance | Reversed: trial court abused discretion; no legal duty to elicit waiver on record and defendant failed to show prejudice or factual predicate for IAC claim |
| Admissibility of evidence that handgun and vehicle were stolen | Prosecution: handgun’s stolen status relevant to CCW legality; vehicle’s stolen status was presented | Defendant: evidence irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Handgun admissible (relevant to CCW); vehicle theft evidence should have been excluded as irrelevant but error was harmless given independent proof of guilt |
| Late endorsement of Tamayo and Detective Smith | Prosecution: defense had actual notice, opportunity to prepare, no unfair prejudice; endorsement delay due to contact difficulties/oversight | Defendant: late endorsement denied fair trial and prejudice | Court: no abuse of discretion—defense had notice, three weeks before trial, cross‑examined witnesses, no unfair prejudice |
| In‑court identification by victim | Prosecution: identification had independent basis (opportunity to observe, proximity, lighting, corroborating physical evidence) | Defendant: identification unduly suggestive (talked to witness, defendant seated at counsel table) | No plain error—identification had independent basis and circumstances did not show significant misidentification risk |
| Prosecutor’s alleged vouching for Tamayo | Prosecution: comments were responsive to defense attack on Tamayo’s credibility | Defendant: prosecutor vouched improperly, prejudicing jury | No plain error—remarks were a direct response to defense argument and jury instructions cured any potential harm |
| Ineffective assistance claims for failure to object to ID and prosecutor remarks | — | Defendant: counsel ineffective for not objecting | Rejected—underlying objections were meritless, so no IAC for failing to raise them |
| Sentencing: OV 10 and OV 19 scoring and upward departure | Prosecution: OV 10 predatory conduct supported by lying in wait; OV 19 supported by attempts to obstruct testimony; departure justified by in‑custody misconduct | Defendant: no predatory preoffense conduct, no evasion or obstruction, guidelines already accounted for factors | Held: OV 10 (15) and OV 19 (10) properly assessed; upward departure to 84‑month minimum was reasonable and proportionate given offense seriousness and repeated in‑custody misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (severed mandatory guidelines; courts must consult guidelines and review departures for reasonableness)
- People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (principle of proportionality guides review of departures)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (harmless error standard for evidentiary mistakes)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (deference to trial strategy in ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. Bell, 209 Mich. App. 273 (no duty for trial court to on‑the‑record ascertain waiver of right to testify)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (eyewitness identification fallibility alone does not require pretrial reliability screening)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain error standard)