People of Michigan v. Terell Mandel Ashford
333490
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Defendant Terell Ashford was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, felony‑firearm, and felon in possession; sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent 20–40 years (armed robbery) and 29 months–5 years (felon in possession) plus a consecutive 2 years (felony‑firearm).
- Defense sought to present an alibi witness (girlfriend Heather Brown) but defense counsel did not file the statutorily required written alibi notice before trial because Brown was uncooperative; Brown was listed as a witness and contacted during trial.
- The trial court excluded Brown’s alibi testimony (except defendant’s own) under MCL 768.21(1) and denied a continuance to allow investigation, finding prejudice to the prosecution and noting counsel’s failure to timely notify.
- Defendant appealed arguing ineffective assistance for failing to file an alibi notice, that exclusion of Brown’s testimony was an abuse of discretion, and that exclusion violated his constitutional right to present a defense.
- The court also reviewed challenges to scoring Offense Variables (OV) 1 (aggravated use of a weapon) and OV 14 (offender was leader) at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for failing to file alibi notice | Counsel’s conduct was reasonable; no deficiency because counsel acted reasonably given witness unavailability. | Counsel was deficient for not filing the alibi notice when he had witness name/address, depriving defendant of defense. | No ineffective assistance: counsel reasonably could not file without a factual basis; defendant failed to show prejudice given strong incriminating evidence. |
| 2. Exclusion of Brown’s alibi testimony / denial of continuance | Preclusion appropriate under MCL 768.21(1); prosecution would be prejudiced by inability to investigate an eleventh‑hour alibi. | Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; court should have granted a continuance and admitted testimony. | No abuse of discretion: trial court properly applied Travis factors and reasonably excluded testimony. |
| 3. Right to present a defense | Exclusion was a permissible enforcement of procedural rules and did not unconstitutionally bar defense. | Exclusion violated constitutional right to present a complete defense. | No constitutional violation: notice rule is a valid procedural safeguard and application here did not plainly deprive defendant of defense. |
| 4. Sentencing — OV 1 and OV 14 scoring | OV 1: properly scored 15 points because pointing a firearm places victim in danger even if gun alleged unloaded. OV 14: properly scored 10 points because defendant was leader. | OV 1: gun was unloaded so victim not placed in danger. OV 14: evidence did not show defendant was leader. | Affirmed: OV 1 and OV 14 scores supported by preponderance of evidence; trial court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Holland, 179 Mich App 184 (discusses alibi witness and notice requirements)
- People v Merritt, 396 Mich 67 (addresses preclusion of untimely alibi and trial court discretion)
- People v Travis, 443 Mich 668 (adopts multi‑factor test for excluding late alibi testimony)
- People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298 (explains prejudice requirement when alibi excluded)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (addresses sentencing guidelines and judicial fact‑finding after advisory guidelines)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain‑error review standard)