People v. Herron, 303 Mich. App. 392

Defendant was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit a larceny and possession of burglary tools, and was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 6 years 4 months to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Police observed defendant inside the salon during a break-in and he discarded a tire iron while fleeing; he was apprehended shortly after.
Defendant admitted breaking in but claimed he lacked the intent to steal; he argued the break-in was a cry for help due to mental health problems.
Defendant requested an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim and a remand to develop a record about three witnesses who could support his defense; the trial court granted the request and heard testimony.
The trial court found defense counsel’s performance not ineffective and denied a new trial; the appellate court reviews mixed questions of fact and law for clear error.
The court held that trial strategy and failure to contact certain witnesses were objectively reasonable and did not undermine the outcome; the claimed witnesses would not have changed the verdict.
Defendant also argued that Alleyne v. United States invalidates Michigan’s sentencing guidelines framework; the court rejected this, holding that judicial fact-finding within guidelines does not create a mandatory minimum and does not violate Apprendi/Alleyne.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance—failure to uncover/call witnesses	Herron claims defense counsel failed to locate/call Fuller, Christensen, Sullivan	Herron argues counsel’s failure deprived him of a defense on intent to commit larceny	No reversible error; counsel's actions were reasonable trial strategy; unlikely witnesses would have altered outcome
Alleyne/Apprendi impact on Michigan sentencing guidelines	Alleyne requiresjury-fact to establish mandatory minimum; guidelines-based scoring violates Apprendi	Guidelines scoring within state scheme is permissible and not a mandatory minimum; no Sixth Amendment violation	Alleyne does not render Michigan guidelines unconstitutional; judicial fact-finding within guidelines informs discretion within statutory maximum

People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575 (2002) (mixed question of fact and law; standard for ineffective assistance)
People v Pubrat, 451 Mich 589 (1996) (standard for ineffective assistance)
People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38 (2012) (test for whether errors require new trial)
People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657 (2004) (presumption of effective assistance; burden on defendant)
People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69 (2012) (wide discretion on trial strategy; admissibility of witnesses)
People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707 (2012) (strategy decisions within trial discretion)
People v Grant, 470 Mich 477 (2004) (investigation deficiencies and ineffective assistance standard)
People v Drohan, 475 Mich 140 (2006) (Apprendi limits on Michigan sentencing guidelines interaction)
Harris v United States, 536 US 545 (2002) (judicial fact-finding and minimum terms in prior framework)
Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000) (any fact increasing maximum penalty must be found by jury)
Alleyne v United States, 570 US _ (2013) (mandatory minimums must be jury-found; distinctions for discretion within range)
McCuller, 479 Mich 672 (2007) (Michigan's sentencing guidelines do not violate Apprendi; distinction from California DSL)
Harper, 479 Mich 599 (2007) (Apprendi framework applied to Michigan sentencing; focus on guidelines and statutory maximum)
Williams v New York, 337 US 241 (1949) (broad sentencing discretion within limits fixed by law)