People of Michigan v. Sandra Kay Vlaz-St Andre
333455
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Sandra Vlaz-St. Andre (wife of former Romulus police chief Michael St. Andre) was convicted by a jury of: conducting/participating in a criminal enterprise, conspiracy to engage in a criminal enterprise, willful failure to file state income tax returns, and receiving/concealing stolen property related to misuse of Romulus Police Department forfeiture funds.
- Evidence showed Michael St. Andre submitted false expense reports and diverted forfeiture monies (used for gambling, salon down payment, surgeries, trips); defendant participated in gambling and benefitted from expenditures and failed to report income on tax returns.
- Forensic accountant testified substantial cash deposits into joint accounts could not be traced to legitimate sources; SIU spent over $431,000 in forfeiture funds 2006–2008 with St. Andre accounting for about half.
- Defense argued missing testimony (former chiefs, mayor) and attacked the prosecution’s evidence; prosecutor’s rebuttal characterized defense argument as a “red herring.”
- Pretrial, defense counsel moved to withdraw ~3 weeks before trial citing nonpayment of fees and breakdown in communications; the trial court denied the motion given counsel’s long representation, imminent trial, and lack of a bona fide irreconcilable dispute.
- Defendant appealed, asserting prosecutorial misconduct (implying defense counsel lied) and deprivation of right to counsel by denying withdrawal; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal | Prosecutor’s comments were proper rebuttal to defense tactic and urged jury to focus on evidence | Prosecutor implied defense counsel was lying/misleading jury, denying fair trial | No misconduct: comments characterized defense argument as distraction, not accusation of lying; curative jury instruction sufficed |
| Trial counsel motion to withdraw denied | State: court properly balanced defendant’s choice of counsel against need for orderly, timely trial | Counsel sought to withdraw due to nonpayment and communication breakdown; defendant argued court failed adequate inquiry and denied right to counsel | Denial not an abuse of discretion: long-standing counsel, imminent trial, primary reason nonpayment rather than irreconcilable strategic dispute |
| Sufficiency of inquiry into attorney-client breakdown | Court: no further inquiry required because motion premised on fees and no clear demonstration of strategic conflict | Defendant: court should have probed reasons more deeply to see if conflict warranted substitution | No error: no bona fide fundamental disagreement shown; additional inquiry unnecessary |
| Ineffective assistance claim based on failure to object to rebuttal | State: failure to object was not ineffective because prosecutor’s remarks were not prejudicial | Defendant: counsel ineffective for not objecting to prosecutorial misconduct | Failure to object not ineffective because objection would have been futile—the remarks were not reversible misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (2010) (standard for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct de novo)
- People v Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (2001) (prosecutor may not imply defense counsel intentionally misleads jury)
- People v Fyda, 288 Mich. App. 446 (2010) (prosecutors afforded wide latitude in argument)
- People v Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (2007) (arguments evaluated in light of defense arguments and evidence; “red herring” comment not necessarily prejudicial)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (curative jury instructions generally cure prejudicial prosecutorial statements)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (2010) (raising meritless objections is not ineffective assistance)
- People v Akins, 259 Mich. App. 545 (2003) (right to counsel of choice not absolute; must balance with efficient administration of justice)
- People v Traylor, 245 Mich. App. 460 (2001) (trial court’s denial of counsel withdrawal reviewed for abuse of discretion; factors to consider)
- People v Young, 276 Mich. App. 446 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- People v Meyers (On Remand), 124 Mich. App. 148 (1983) (defendant may not sabotage attorney-client relationship to obtain new counsel)
- People v Krist, 93 Mich. App. 425 (1979) (disagreements over strategy do not warrant substitution of counsel)