PEOPLE OF MI V DANYALE WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 30, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 197593
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 95-014015
DANYALE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Wahls and J. R. Weber*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right his bench trial conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant waived his right to trial by jury in a proceeding conducted by Recorder’s Court
Judge Robert L. Evans. The trial, however, was conducted before Recorder’s Court Judge Karen Fort
Hood. Defendant first argues that, by virtue of the phraseology Judge Evans used in advising defendant
of his right to trial by jury or to instead opt for a bench trial, defendant was given reason to expect that
Judge Evans would personally preside at the eventual trial. On this basis he argues that his waiver of
trial by jury was not understanding and voluntary. The statute which permits waiver of trial by jury,
MCL 763.4; MSA 28.857, specifies that once trial by jury is waived any judge of the court in which the
matter is pending may preside at trial. The written waiver form, an exemplar of which defendant
executed in this case, similarly indicates that the waiver is not judge specific. Sinistaj v Burt, 66 F3d
804, 809 (CA 6, 1995). Assuming arguendo that defendant’s misunderstanding would have entitled
him to have the trial court exercise its discretion as to whether to allow him to withdraw his waiver,
defendant never asked to withdraw his waiver. As it must have been apparent to defendant that Judge
Hood was not Judge Evans, defendant’s failure to object before trial waived any right he might have had
to insist on trial either before Judge Evans or by a jury. People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 546; 520
NW2d 123 (1994).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Defendant next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because, at trial, counsel failed to
pursue a line of questioning that had been utilized at his preliminary examination. No demonstration has
been made that the series of inquiries at preliminary examination was effective in establishing a
reasonable doubt or otherwise casting doubt on the credibility of the arresting officer. In any event,
defendant has the burden of overcoming a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was within the
range of reasonable assistance, and a further presumption that the challenged action might have been
sound trial strategy. People v Mitchell, 454 Mich 145; 560 NW2d 600 (1997). Defendant has failed
to carry his burden of proof in either respect.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ John R. Weber
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
