People v. Randolph
502 Mich. 1
Mich.2017Background
- Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, related firearms offenses, based largely on a handgun and ammunition and witness testimony recounting threats.
- Police searched defendant's bags at his father's home without a warrant after the father consented; ammunition was found and led to federal involvement and an arrest warrant that preceded a search of the brother's apartment where the murder weapon was found.
- Defense counsel did not object at trial to (a) the admission of the ammunition and gun and (b) hearsay testimony recounting threats; defendant later raised ineffective-assistance claims and unpreserved plain-error claims on appeal.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the unpreserved claims for plain error and rejected both the plain-error and related ineffective-assistance claims, often relying on the plain-error analysis to dispose of the Strickland claims.
- On remand from this Court, a Ginther evidentiary hearing had been conducted; trial counsel admitted no strategic reason for not moving to suppress the ammunition.
- The Michigan Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals conflated plain-error and Strickland standards and remanded for separate Strickland analysis of the ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to show plain error on an unpreserved trial-court error precludes an ineffective-assistance claim about the same error | Randolph argued that failing plain-error review should not bar showing counsel was ineffective for not preserving the issue | The Court of Appeals treated failure on plain-error review as dispositive and said related Strickland claims must fail | Supreme Court: No — plain-error and Strickland are distinct; failure on plain error does not automatically foreclose Strickland relief |
| Admissibility of gun/ammunition (Fourth Amendment/search) | Randolph argued the initial warrantless search at father's home was unlawful, making later gun/ammo fruits of the poisonous tree; counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress | Court of Appeals found the record insufficient to establish an obvious Fourth Amendment violation and relied on that to reject ineffective-assistance claim | Supreme Court: Court of Appeals erred by using plain-error analysis to dispose of the Strickland claim; remand for Strickland analysis (performance and prejudice) |
| Admission of Vena's out-of-court statements (hearsay/excited utterance) | Randolph argued statements admitting threats were inadmissible hearsay and counsel was ineffective for not objecting | Court of Appeals held any error was not obvious and that the statements did not prejudice because jury convicted of second-degree murder | Supreme Court: Court of Appeals impermissibly conflated standards and failed to apply Strickland to counsel's performance and prejudice; remand required |
| Appropriate remedy/process when both claims are raised | Randolph urged separate evaluation and possible evidentiary development (Ginther hearing) for Strickland claims | Court of Appeals used appellate record/plain-error framework and denied relief | Supreme Court: Courts must independently apply Strickland (including considering evidentiary hearings) and may not shortcut by relying on plain-error outcomes; remand to Court of Appeals for proper Strickland review |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong deficient-performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (adopts and explains four-part plain-error test for unpreserved errors)
- People v. Grant, 445 Mich. 535 (1994) (adopts federal plain-error approach for unpreserved nonconstitutional errors)
- People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973) (authorizes evidentiary hearing to develop ineffective-assistance claims)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance claims often require factual development and are frequently litigated collateral to direct appeal)